tv Washington This Week CSPAN April 21, 2012 10:00am-2:00pm EDT
>> coming up next, a senate hearing on long-term care for the elderly. then the group citizens against government waste releases their annual report on earmarks and the budget. after that a house hearing on north >> the senate aging committee looked into long-term care for seniors on wednesday. they were addressing the national debt and deficits. it is about one hour and 20 minutes. >> good afternoon to everyone and thank you so much for being here. today we are looking at the question of how best to provide
and finance long-term care services to the millions of americans who need them while balancing our debt and deficits and our overall financial picture. as we look ahead, we will have to do more with less. we must find better and more efficient ways to provide care because the money simply will not be there. today, we are here to talk about some of the ways to save money without doing material damage to long-term care. the cost of long-term care services, more hundred $300 billion a year, are already massive for taxpayers and families. unless checked, this will continue to grow as our aging population requires more long- term care. medicaid projects $1.90 trillion in long-term care costs in the next 20 years with an annual
increase of 6.6%. we are seeing similar cost increases for medicare and the long-term care insurance industry. unfortunately, there is no easy answer. our two largest publicly financed health care programs, medicare and medicaid, pays for the bulk of long-term care. they are limited in scope. private long-term care insurance has the potential to play a larger role. the market is facing challenges. some consumers are skeptical about pursing a policy. the best purchasing a policy. is it worth the cost and doesn't represent a -- is it the best purchasing policy? what are the savings we would
achieve by reducing unnecessary hospitalizations, avoiding institutionalize asian, and using home and community-based services. the best institutionalization and using home and community- based services. this will enable all seniors to plan for an access long-term care. we will need to work together in a bipartisan manner. we look forward to today's hearing and the testimony and ideas we will hear from our witnesses. now the witnesses. the directorien is of insurance for the u.s. office of personnel management where he oversees the federal employees' health benefits program. he also oversees the federal
long-term insurance program. it is the largest long-term care insurance program in the country. mr. loren colman has more than 25 years of experience with long-term care facilities. he oversees a host of programs for older adults and is the leading force behind minnesota's transform 2000 program, which was designed to help the state prepared for the retirement of the baby boom generation. dr. douglas holtz-eakin was with the council of economic advisers from 2001 to 2002. he served as director of the congressional budget office from 2003 to 2005. professor judy feder served as
dean of the public policy institute in washington d.c.. today, she is a professor at georgetown university, and its fellow at the -- institute and an elected member of the institute of medicine. dr. bruce chernof is part of an organization that is dedicated to the resource and dissemination of knowledge to improve global help. he also serves as the chief medical officer for the los angeles county department of medical services. we thank you all for being here. before we go to your testimony, we will hear from the distinguished ranking member of this committee, senator bob corker. >> i came at the perfect time. i do not give opening comments but.
i look forward to listening to our witnesses -- i do not give opening comments much. i look forward to listening to our witnesses. >> thank you for the opportunity to testify today on long-term care insurance. long-term care is provided to people who need help with the activities of daily living or who need supervision due to severe cognitive impairment. this can be provided at home or at a nursing home. most long-term care plans the- most insurance plans do not provide coverage for long-term -- most insurance plans do not provide coverage for long-term services. the likelihood of needing long- term services increases with age.
americans have a 76% chance of meeting some kind of long-term care during their lives. they need help take care of themselves due to diseases or severe mental illness. long-term care insurance is also important because service can be a expensive for the average american family. in 2011, the average cost of a semiprivate room was over $70,000. in 2000, congress passed the long-term care security act. to provided opm's long-term care. in march 2002, the long term program or the federal work force was introduced. it is the largest employer sponsored long-term care program in the country.
the long-term program is a 100% employee paid benefits. the government uses leverage in the marketplace to offer private long-term care insurance to federal employees and caused by family members. it is a joint venture of john hancock and metropolitan life. by february 2003, 187,000 individuals were enrolled. by the end of the initial seven year contract term, in rome and had increased to 224,000 enrollees. as part of the new contract, john hancock added increase home reimbursement, hired daily -- --
and increased benefits for family members. in addition, carol civilian and uniformed service employees and other qualified -- federal civilian and uniformed service employees and other qualified employees include family members. there are four prepackaged options. the offer variations in the daily benefit amount, the benefit period, waiting period and inflation protection options. the package includes comprehensive care coordination, portability of coverage, no exclusions, and guaranteed readability. enrollees can change their coverage options and there are a variety of premium payment options.
the new contract offered new covered options that were not previously available. an individual can enroll in the long-term care program at any time. outside of an open and roma period or more than 60 days after their hiring as an employee, they are subject to a physical. employees and their spouses can apply with abbreviated underwriting. a cancer of your questions about their medical history. during the 2011 open season -- employees must answer questions about their medical history. there was a memorandum from the president directing agencies to extend benefits to same-sex domestic partners of federal employees consistent with the existing laws. the open season began in fall of 2010. long-term care officers were to
increase the benefits for the federal work sort -- workforce. there were advertisements, payroll notices, and other tools educating the federal work force about long-term care. additional information is available on the federal long- term care website. clarity and transparency were top priorities of the educational campaign. care was taken to ensure that benefits and features of a long- term service products were clearly understood. this was successful in the increasing awareness among the elderly population that the program is a valuable and cost- effective way to prepare for the high cost of long-term care. we receive 45,000 applications during the 2011 applications season. total enrollment increased 20%.
as long-term care insurance markets continued to evolve, we believe the federal long-term care program is well positioned to offer a variety of expensive choices which relatively low cost to enrollees. we would like to maintain policies that would protect current enrollees. for example, we want to partner with states to provide long-term care. we will continue to set plan benefit options. long-term care insurance provides a cost-effective way for individuals making average income, like most federal employees, to protect themselves against the financial catastrophe that a long-term illness or injury can cause. the long term insurance market is beyond and uncertain. congress can monitor the market to make sure the program meets the needs of the modern family.
our program is to provide enrollees with insurance protection. thank you for the opportunity to testify today. it is a happy to address any questions you may afterwards. >> thank you, mr. o'brien. mr. colman? >> thank you for the opportunity to share the efforts minnesota is making to provide the best possible long-term care system for older adults and persons with disabilities. the structure was built over many years of long-term services and support for older adults and people with disabilities. last fall, we were proud and gratified to see the quality of minnesota's long-term care system recognized by the aarp. we write number one on the first ever aarp scoreboard. the best we ranked number 1 on
the first ever aarp scoreboard. -- we ranked number 1 on the first ever aarp scoreboard. this enologist minnesota's effort in providing comprehensive -- this acknowledges minnesota's effort in providing comprehensive service. it provides evidence base support for family caregivers. not that long ago, most people were served by medicaid in minnesota received long-term care services in institutions. we have developed the support needed to survey the best serve people in their homes and communities. the 2% of the older adults receiving medicaid get that care in their home or in community settings. 95% of persons with disabilities receiving assistance, long-term care services are in community
settings. the state and facilities have work in partnership for improved quality and care. several years ago, we launched a nursing report card. consumers and family members can access comparative immigration on quality and consumer satisfaction. the median length of stay in a minnesota nursing facility is now less than 30 days. services have become rehabilitative in nature. the industry has contributed to rightsizing the number and distributing nursing facilities throughout the state. healthy synergy results in having because the area for aging and adult services, disability services, nursing facility rates and policy, and the minnesota board on aging consolidated into deep department of human services that i oversee.
we worked hard over years to insure a solid alignment and the services delivered under american aid -- medicaid and the american services act. these become the critical safety net seniors use as they become more frail. by aligning them much more closely in the house in years transition, we assure the system works in a more cost conscious manner and delivers care better for seniors and their care givers. the older americans act is a critical rick larsen -- a critical resource. the fall line, which serves 89,000 older minnesota citizens and their families -- the phone line is a valuable foundation for our services. we have a statewide virtual call center that allows for a single tour of -- toll-free access in writing to roll -- routing to
rural communities. they are well-positioned to answer inquiries for people who want to understand the basis about housing and other long- term care services as they age. under new legislation, the counselors on are involved -- are involved in helping individuals considering this is a living to becoming fully informed consumers. good information as early as possible can delay the need for more expensive services, or the need to access medicaid. we are a one-stop shop for seniors and their families with direct contacts with all state agencies. similar to many states, minnesota is sufficiently
challenged in meeting be anticipated demand for long-term services and support, especially as baby boomers age. we are working on a request for a medicaid waiver to redesign the program based on the nita the individual. to get the right level of services based on their need from lower need to hire need. we know the preference for most older people to remain in their home. we want them to make those choices by making only community-based services the norm in minnesota and institutional can exception. minnesota has worked to rebalance our long-term care system. we have also had our eye on the coming situation. we are building on what other states have done in partnership
with the federal government. we are adding some new elements. a public awareness campaign that accused -- that uses marketing. development of more affordable products for middle eastern people. -- for middle income people. and long-term care partnership is a start. it is not the end. targeted out reach for employers as a credible source of information about long-term care and financing options. employers benefit for offering workers a sense of control and peace of mind. the minnesota business community has expressed a strong interest in working with us. our goals for the future is not only to raise awareness of a plan to risk our long-term care needs. we want to improve the quality of life for minnesota citizens in their later years by increasing those who a taken action to own their future and
maintain to assist. i can provide more details on the campaign is not lost today. thank you for the opportunity to testify. >> thank you, mr. colman. professor feder ? ? >> i am delighted to be here today to discuss with you the services available to people we need long-term care. that is the focus of my testimony. i specifically want to explain why it is so important that the medicare program gets top priority in delivering to beneficiaries who need long-term care and that those initiatives extend care beyond medical care to include the coronation of
long-term care services. the data that i present in my testimony will tell you why this is so important. i am hoping you have my testimony in front of you. if you do not, i will tell you to look for it in the data when you look at the pictures. when we look at the data, is not the people with chronic conditions who drive the costs higher. what we show you in the first figure, it is the 50% of medicare beneficiaries -- the 15% of medicare beneficiaries
with chronic illnesses account for half of the long-term care spending. that spending is disproportionate. average per person spending for enrollees with chronic conditions and with functional limitations is at least double the average with enrollees with chronic conditions only. medicare spends only $16,000 per capita for beneficiaries who are functionally impaired and much less for everybody else. the third figure in my testimony shows that this pattern of higher spending for chronically ill people who have the functional limitations runs into people who are chronically ill and who do not -- limitations compared to people who are chronically ill and who
do not have functional limitations. it is long-term care that is driving. the result is that it is beneficiaries long-term care needs who rank among the highest medicare spenders. you see it in figure four. nearly half of the beneficiaries in the top 20% and 60 1% of the top by% of spenders need long- term care on top of double-5% of spenders -- 5% of spenders need long-term care on top of functional deficiencies. we also find that it is higher
hospital and post-hospital spending in skilled nursing facilities by home health agencies that are the largest source of the entrance spending that i have described for you for people with long-term care needs. the good news is that using new authorities in the affordable care act is promoting delivery innovations aimed to reduce this kind of excessive hospital and post-hospital services. the past experience tells us that without effective targeting to beneficiaries most at risk of inappropriate and high hospital use such as the long-term care users i have been describing, the coordination is not likely to produce significant savings. that is why it is so important
that medicare started its innovation to people with chronic conditions and functional limitations and coordinate the full range of their service needs. although limited in number, programs that do this exist and have shown promise in reducing hospital use, nursing home admissions, and costs for selected patients while improving the quality of care. we can build on these experiences by improving upon, but not replacing, the fee-for-service payment system. paying monthly amounts for unrolled patients and holding participating uproviders
responsible. beneficiaries served by medicare and medicare represent half of the beneficiaries' i have been talking about. despite its potential i've shown you for medicare savings, policy makers have focused overwhelmingly on states and medicaid rather than medicare as primarily responsible for improving care. the absence of medicare leadership is particularly odd given that 80% of the dollars spent on bull eligible -- dual eligibles are federal dollars. to improve costs and -- to improve care and reduce costs to medicare and medicaid
beneficiaries an equal number of medicare only beneficiaries who need long-term care, it is essential that medicare exert is leadership rather than shift responsibility to the state. a major way they can do that is to give priority and delivery reforms to people who need long- term care and to corneille in their long-term care as well as their medical services. thank you. >> thank you very much. dr. chernof. >> thank you. my name is dr. bruce chernof. i served on an organization that envisions a society where seniors receive integrated
medical care and support services that are most appropriate for their needs and have the greatest likelihood to retreat to a healthy and independent life. americans are living longer with the previous conditions -- generations. most of versus the best month americans are not -- most americans have few tools to plan for the reality of needing long- term care. we need to track family availability of resources. when they have exhausted their personal resources and can no longer shoulder these costs on their own, they have to depend on medicaid for help. those who qualify for medicaid long-term services and support, need assistance for the rest of their lives. medical students fundamental to
the current finances and delivery of long-term services. the longest -- it is the backdrop for all vulnerable older americans who needed this kind of care. mccain has evolved over the years from paying for nursing home care to funding critical services in the community that will allow low income individuals to live in the place that they call home. several states are currently taking strides to bolster their medicaid long-term services. the goal of providing high- quality and cost-effective care to their residence including state representatives and members of the committee. for example, in our recent scorecard that we could to get that was the best that we put together a that was created by aarp -- scorecard that we put
together, we placed fourth in the nation. tennessee is the front-runner in this group given their experience with the choices program. current law and regulations include many positive revisions in aca. this gives states the chance to create strong, integrated care. states must increase quality monitoring to insure that individuals have proper access and that quality protection is incorporated into purchasing contracts and are up held in practice. states seeking to deal with a cost problem without giving sufficient attention to access and care delivery have a great potential to create undue harm to some of the country's most
vulnerable residents. we believe that more person- centered care delivered in organized systems will generate -- these are not sufficient because there will be a net increase in need. we will take on more long-term resource to support due to the trifecta of increasing life expectancy, increasing prevalence of crime conditions and low savings rates among baby boomers. some states will experience the impact of these a factors on their medicaid programs faster than others. postures are needed to minimize the disparity. those same resources that face potential cuts are entitled reform discussions.
many other organizations have done polling work. we have done polling work ourselves. the majority of americans have no idea who pays for long-term care. they believe medicare were covered them with the time comes. -- will cover them when the time comes. american families deserve an affordable, accessible, comprehensive solution to plan for win the future -- a resources and supports needs without having to spend down to medicaid. policy options in the public sector and the private world should be thoroughly explored so that americans can receive high- quality services provided with dignity, respect, and
transparency. thank you so much. >> thank you, dr. chernof. mr. holtz-eakin. >> thank you. let me pick up on some comments made by the panelists before me. this is a problem. there are two separate aspects to it. it first will be the nuts and bolts costs for long term career -- long-term care services driven by the increasing cost per person. there are two things you can think about in dealing with that fundamental problem. those kind of preventive actions that could be taken to defer or eliminate the need for long-term care services. the increasing prevalence of
alzheimer's and dementia. to the extent that research and other efforts can make progress on that, that is something that should be within the scope of the discussion. the second is the models of delivery, which are more efficient. we need to pick flexible strategist. we note the current models needed fall -- we will have to have a lot of flexibility in the delivery of these services when we try to figure out what works. avoiding building into some sort of program or a rigid structure in the first order of business given the cost problems we face. the second aspect is the financing of the cost of those services.
we will have to do things very differently. an enormous effort should be placed on enhancing the private sector financing of these services as a top priority. and doing everything possible -- i understand this is not easy -- so that private long-term care insurance take a greater role in financing this. i say that for two major reasons. we of the current and projected streams in the federal budget. they are daunting. t cbo, i have not seen anything like we find ourselves in. we can not suspend the best subject taxpayers to man the story -- we cannot subject taxpayers to mandatory spending.
we are on an unsustainable trajectory. if we can enhance the private sector picked up of these costs before we put them on the federal budget, everyone comes out ahead. we have never pre-funded the cost of these services. private insurance companies are preserving premiums and paying for the cost of that care. there are some international savings issues. there is a benefit of delivering better overall growth and economic reform at a time we will need every national dollar meet the demands on the public and private sector for resources for the elderly and the working population. the strategists have to be flexibility and prevention on the costs. private sector on the financing. i would be happy to continue the discussion.
thank you. >> thank you very much. we will go to questions and comments in a moment. there appeared to be three areas where we can save money. that damages the effectiveness of long-term care. number one, by keeping people off of the hostile in the firms clients. no. 2, not sending people to a nursing home until they absolutely -- no. 2 - number -- number 2 -- how can we do better. particular thoughts and ideas on how we can improve? and our cost of long-term care without damaging the product.
mr. o'brien? >> opm is interested in continuing to improve the product we are offering. the experience of folks who are getting these services is relatively small pellets into total population. one of the things we are monitoring closely with our contractor as we go forward is in delivering the service, we will make sure the contractor applies to our program. we are looking forward to hearing with the best way forward is. >> mr. colman? >> initially, we have to look at what the consumer wants and what does the consumer have the ability to have as a choice. it number one thing we hear from older people in the minnesota
is, there was no way in their homes. if we can provide low-cost intervention, we can delayed the lead for more expensive the need foraidelay more expensive services. we have a tracking in minnesota. 92% of long-term care in the minnesota is provided by the families right now. they want to continue to do so. the more we can support families to continue to help their older family members, it will conserve dollars for those who truly have higher needs. >> does that 92% lead the nation? >> i do not know what other states are tracking. >> are you imagine that is among
the highest in terms of percentage? >> it is probably on the higher end of the spectrum. family members throughout the country wants to support their family member. they need the tools. any the information. they need some additional support in order to do so. i believe there are people across the country who are committed to helping the family members. >> a key is keeping people with long-term care needs in their homes as long as possible. out of hospitals, out of nursing homes, and in their homes. >> that is correct. >> when you asked about reducing the hospital use, that was one of your goals in my testimony was directed toward that.
court in a long-term care needs and basic medical needs. i would add to their, preventing unnecessary hospitalizations. we have preventable hospital used by long-term nursing-home residents. they are not getting enough nesting care in the national. i would urge attention to holding s.a. -- holding nursing facilities accountable for providing that could care and preventing unnecessary admissions for bed sores or dehydration. a third area for medicare images ships would be greater accountability for good quality care, including preventing unnecessary hospitalization.
we do not know very much about what goes on in most of them. we should do a better job of holding them accountable for delivering a corporate jet. when you ask about promoting more home and community-based care, i would answer with in -- i would answer in what not to do. making major cuts in medicaid financing in medicare and turning over more responsibility to the states, which split home and community-based care. nursing-home facilities have a great deal of political power in the states. when resources are constrained, particularly as needs are rising, to cut one is coming in from the federal government, it would put an community-based services at risk. i would pick up on a question i heard in dr. chernof's testimony
about in in this is is moving toward managed care. they are budget and not quality driven. there are two that we have to be mindful. whether or not we will be getting home and community-based services along with other services. finally, i went to london and the comment. -- on the at want to address another comment. as the population ages, is where routine for those improvements for preventing alzheimer's. it is not my personal interest. it is in the nation's interest. we will see a need for reforming long-term care services. i am not they believe that we will make great progress. we can do better, especially on is called to account i do not
see that as the financing solution for the problem, but we have it now or in the future. in that area, and has federal support or with the federal of the program is going to be critical. >> dr. chernof, how can we do better without spending more? you are asking -- >> you are asking a basic question of what we can do better now. i want to address my comments to your question, which is, what can we do with current systems to approve them given what we know.
if you are to look at our long term services support card and the road map we completed looking at the steps to improving systems whether it is moving to a long-term management services or created models, we should be encouraged by the fact that there are good models out there. the notion that we are starting from scratch is not accurate. there are really good models and we should build on those experiences. flexibility is really important. how we are going to meet the needs of the family -- families and local systems is on the ground. the solution reside in organized, accountable systems
of can that have the flexibility to meet the needs of families. those flexible, counsel systems have four key characteristics. they began by focusing on the quality and coordination of care. the notion of time getting the right services to the right folks is relatively important the second point would be that they have rebalancing at their core. we want to help folks stay in the community of their choice. we are going to work against the tyranny. the soy a physician. i grew up in hospitals. a brick and mortar try so much of the financing of health care. we are talking on a system that begins and should be in the community. the third point is self direction enjoys. it is hard for clinical providers to do that.
if we start by talking with patients and families about what they want and try to achieve that, that will often be the most accounts -- cost-effective choice. it keeps the family and the individual in the driver's seat. the four point is that any of these changes really need to be deficient systems. they need to generate cost savings that need to be used to support the system. they generate outcomes that improve quality. you measure what you are doing. we are not building a system that is actually more efficient and a much better public resources and we are used to for these programs. >> dr. holtz-eakin? >> there are models.
our experience at sea be all was that successful models cannot scale successfully. dold that when i was at the cbo -- at cbo, i learned that successful models to not always scale successfully. you can learn from the different states experiences. to the extent that we wanted to try some more coronation, that would be a sensible first step in this area.
we can see what we get in larger populations. >> senator bob corker? >> thank all of you for your testimony. look at overall financing for health care in general. a major train wreck is on the horizon. i was visiting a couple of neighbors in a long-term care facility. it is incredible. many of us have friends or neighbors who have had alzheimer's. we see more and that -- more and more of that coming. the financing problem is incredible difficult and a national issue moving to a national crisis. how r&d institutions you work with doing? how are they acting warily --
actuarily doing? their are larger concentrations of alzheimer's. how are private institutions caring in the long term care business? >> i think we have seen some private failures where they have not adequately managed those risks. we have also seen some of the institutions understand the interactions with medicaid better. they are taking advantage of partnership opportunities. there is a 5% inflation risk to the beneficiary and they manage their plans sufficiently.
there are people in the business and successful. if we get more examples like opm where there are more employers providing the gateway, they would have a much brighter future. when you look at the kinds of things and matter for making private insurance more successful and a bigger part of this -- i do not think private insurance is going to pay every dollar. we had to get every dollar we can from private insurance. the demands on the public sector are going to be enormous. there is a lot of ignorance about the need for this care in the line. they get whatever you can employer offered as part of the package.
it is not perfect for everything. there is a medicare coordination issue. medicare crawled out long-term care insurance. that deserves serious consideration. you could consider some things from the tax code. none of them are magic bullets. since we have a saving need any long-term care financing needs, innovative financial products might be part of the solution. if you go back to the literature on how to get people to buy health insurance, you could have opted out. start with private long-term care insurance as part of a package and opt out if you do not want it. none of them are going to solve it. all of the merits some consideration. >> it is not that i do not like
long-term care private insurance. in terms of recognizing that it is part of the solution. it is not the solution. my concern is, as long as i have been working on this issue and has been called -- or get on this issue, it has been called the straggler issue. it is not growing. several of the companies have stopped offering the product. i didn't know if they are going out of business, but they are having difficulty making money
on it and making it grow. the ways in which they keep on going out of business is that they mix lifetime benefits and are careful in selecting their beneficiaries. then they increase the premiums even after people have campaigned for years. it is a product that promotes strong quality standards. it is a good product, it is good that people would need can afford it. the number who can is modest. the industry itself recognizes that. my concern was a strategy to make it better. making it better is great.
as we all know, you cannot make that up with volume, and yet a lot of volume has gone its way over the next 10 years in particular. knowing we are not particularly good at making those things work in the public sector, we always want to give people what they wish without asking them to pay for it. that is kind of the way politics
has been in western democracies. is there a way for us to effectively design a public plan that addresses the concern you are talking about, that we are all talking about? >> i think there is, and unfortunately there is a lot of resistance to that at the current time. >> i think a lot of that is because of the way we have handled a lot of these other programs. >> let me address that. first, i think it is useful and we have heard a couple of times, accurately i think, that 70% of people turning age 65 are not going to need long-term care. the reason we are talking about insurance, whether public or private is because there is a lot of unpredictability for individuals about where they are going to fall. 30% are not going to need it at all. i think we may all route for that, to live for ripe old age and then say goodbye. that would be the best.
even within the 70%, about 17% use less than a year of intensive long-term care services, and at the other cent of the spectrum -- excuse me, 20% use 5%. so there is variation. savings along, you cannot do it. it is just not doable. on the medicare point, the problem there is rising healthcare costs. first of all, would only contribute during our working years to cover part a, mostly hospital cost, which is only about half of costs. the rest is paid through premiums and general revenue. there is such an imbalance because we are not controlling health-care costs.
it is not that medicare is doing worse than the private sector. if anything, medicare is doing slightly better than it has done -- slightly better in controlling costs, and now moving forward, because we are moving toward more integrated care, we are looking to have medicare lead the whole system in making that more efficient. so what i would not share a negative view toward medicare. i think we need to do better and all our health care spending. >> i was not giving a negative view, i was just dating the facts. we spend three times as much as we are taking in. i am just saying that as politicians, we have difficulty aligning those things. i agree that both on the public and private side, health care costs have not been controlled. i am not making a differentiation between public and private.
we just have not had this program or any other entitlement program particularly well. >> i am not sure we agree on that, but that is okay, we can move on from that. i thought what your talking about is looking for a way to refund --prefund. i'll be happy to provide for the record of proposal that was developed by len berman, who used to run joint tax center, and a colleague of his at the urban institute that actually put forward the designs for theprefunding of services. i think that can be done. prfunding at all, which medicare was never designed to be, is challenging, because we tend to lend ourselves that money and we
want to really put it away. that is the challenging part. but i would be happy to share that. >> i am sorry for taking so long. >> if you want to ask a couple of questions or make comments? go ahead. >> very kind of you. mr. coleman, we all know that medicaid was never intended to be the primary provider of long- term care coverage, yet medicaid is the largest pair of long-term care services. with long-term care accounted for almost half of national long-term care spending, as a former governor, and of giving our states the flexibility and resources they need to innovate is a first and critical step toward controlling spending in the medicaid through -- program and an improving long-term care outcomes. we will never achieve equality in savings -- treated with a one-size-fits-all service.
as you noted in the testimony, [unintelligible] to make sure the services go to the most in need, which i agree with. with that being said, what steps did congress take to improve and create it -- improve the flexibility states like west virginia and minnesota? >> thank you for the question. i, too, believe that states can manage programs effectively and i think minnesota is an example of if you have a vision, if you have a goal, and if you plan properly, you can achieve that. but it takes some prerequisites. it cannot have a home community- based system unless you plan to have that system. unless you have the infrastructure for committees to retain people of all ages in
their communities. i think we have to not only move away from a one-size-fits-all philosophy so that all states will look alike, but also that the waivers have to look identical. we have had this partnership with the federal government and it begins with the assumption that the institution, because of the way the programs were initiated, the institution is the entitlement and then you have to seek permission to do things differently, which is always contrary to my thinking, what we have to ask permission to do things differently than the consumer wants. again, i will repeat, people want to stay in their homes, and that is what we are redesigning a system whereby a the most expensive care, the most expensive services, the waiver, so to speak, will be available
to those with highest needs, where it cannot be provided elsewhere. but beyond that, we want strategies to maintain independence. low-cost strategies to maintain independence, low-cost strategies to encourage transition back to the community, and we have had some success with that, transition to communities from people who have been in nursing homes longer than 90 days are proving very successful, but it takes a person by person strategy to achieve that outcome and it just declare that is what we are going to do, it takes resources, which is what minnesota is doing. if we dispense with the waiver and then everyone has that full menu, as opposed to targeting based on individual needs, where in the system that best can use
their -- >> you believe in waivers, correct? >> i do, sir. >> on waivers, how to the states have a little bit more flexibility, and you believe that is important? >> thank you, senator. just billy on what was already said, i think there needs to be a valid, reliable delivery system in place. to get from where you are to where you want to be really depends on the resources that are currently available. if you don't have everything indeed, the need to get the time to grow those resources. that is why some of the flexibility is a really important. if you are going to encourage folks to remain in their home or in their community, there have to be valid, reliable, observable, accountable resources that can be there to help those families when they need that little bit of help.
where the flexibility is come in, i do agree, moving away from the only in, being the nursing home and actually getting to a place where folks get home and community-based services as a right, not as a waiting list, but as a right. that is a huge step in the right direction. the state's need to be able to demonstrate there is really a valid system that is there to meet the needs as they make that transition. the state's need to be able to ask about flexibility that there is a demonstrable system were quality is being measured, where there is a way that a fault for having a problem, the issues can be addressed. but we need to move away from [unintelligible] >> inouye testimony, it is a common misconception that medicare cover long-term care
and simply never believe many simply don't say for plan for it. what do you think can be done, or what should be done for us to educate the public, because there are so many people who have nowhere to turn. >> i will be honest, i don't know if there is a magic public education program. there are enormous problems in these programs. there have been some on your future initiatives that have been mentioned. you need to look and see what kind of success is you get from them. they are relatively small scale. if they turn out to be a good investment, they improve awareness and they don't cost much, that would be great. the more you can do through the employer community, who are often very effective in reaching their employees about various financial management issues. those are good things to do.
>> thank you, mr. chairman. thanks to you and the ranking member:this important hearing. i think this discussion has been very helpful. i have a couple questions that are more focused, but first i want to of knowledge that dr. turn off, i think you are sitting between those two advocates -- dr. chernoff. >> thank you all for your great spirited conversation. let me turn to you, mr. colman. on rural parts of the country, parts of eastern colorado is very rural. we produce a lot of food and fiber and fuel for the country. we also have western regions in colorado their very rural. order some of the unique challenges and providing those
long-term services into those parts of your state? it is what are some of the unique challenges in providing those services? >> minnesota has greater minnesota also, where population density is certainly a challenge in providing services to older adults and people with disabilities. what we have found is that we need some flexibility. again, relying upon the community and the community infrastructure with which to base long-term care services and support, we need to acknowledge the drive time, the differences that we need to accommodate in our policies to allow for people to have some choice, but that may not have as much choice. his to a challenge to devise policies that accommodate those kind of distinctions are differences -- it is a
challenge. we are also learning the value of technology and the fact that every day, there is more to be learned from how we can support people in their own homes with the use of technology, via the internet, the other lifeline like systems. and monitoring systems for people who are some miles away from services. >> i would reiterate and enforce the emphasis on technology to connect people who are disbursed --dispersed, who can check in on people who are impaired. skype is a wonderful thing. there are mechanisms that can make people feel connected and
supported and keep them connected to care givers who are more likely -- by which i mean medical technicians and urban areas. you asked about medicare. medicare in terms of developing integrated delivery systems, i think medicare is in the process of doing this. medicare can do a great deal. by trying to support physician practices, small physician practices and rural areas, and using that personnel who can serve several practices as care coordinator, who are able to connect using both visits and the technology to people who are in their own homes and enable them to connect to resources for support. i think medicare can do a lot in that regard. >> so you perhaps you could be
making house calls using technology without actually being on site. >> i am confident it is not exactly the same, but you could greatly enhance support for people, both in terms of monitoring their conditions and in terms of helping them keep track of people sunni know when a crisis is occurring. -- so you know when a crisis is occurring. helping identify when people need intervention and trying to connect them to the resources, the infrastructure we are talking about building, so that they can stay home so that we do not have unnecessary hospitalization. >> i am sure i will not be stubborn and my children will think i am very flexible. they both want to live in their own homes in their later years, imagine that. they both took falls, and there
was no one there, and both of them late in the bathroom or kitchen for half a day or longer. as a result of those walls, it ended up in their deaths. i wonder if their -- as our results of those -- as a result of those falls. >> because of unnecessary hospitalization might be hydration. all those things can improve quality of life and quality of care for people and prevent the use of expensive services. >> dehydration actually contributed to their conditions. let me go back to long-term care insurance. i have my little pamphlet sitting in my home office suggesting how to buy long-term care insurance. i have not responded yet. i keep thinking i will find a
moment where i want to do that. and now the than the federal program -- i know in the federal -- what are you doing to think about attracting more carriers, and how are we further using market psychology to get us aging baby boomers to participate? >> you have identified one of the challenges that we see in the federal long-term care program going forward. in recent years, the number of insurers who are actively participating in this market has gone down. i am not so concerned that we have one provider in the long- term care program right now. the way we have done it, that is the way we do life insurance. it is not like health-insurance people is changing yearly. i am more concerned that when
we reject the contract we only had one active bidder to provide that service. so we are -- when we reupped the contract. there are not enough active participants, insurers out there trying to provide that service. the point was made earlier today that the market had stayed relatively static over a number of years, and his cannot grow rapidly. we are happy in the fact that with our most recent budget when the contract opened up again, that we increased enrollment are roughly 20%, which we thought was very positive. it is one of the challenges on the horizon for us. >> i could help those numbers if i would sign up. >> you can sign up any time. [laughter] >> i think it is very important to harness market forces, literally from the ground up.
you have heard talk of the technologies, the need for flexibility, and markets are very get that. there are rules for government in this and that are on both sides. you care about privacy. you care about having quality personnel going into someone's home and delivering services. but if you regulate too tightly what a person can and cannot do, you will not get the benefits of bungling those services. a thorough review at the ground level in every state about the ability to provide these services cheaply is going to make the care cheaper and that will then help make the insurance cheaper. it cannot get around that. it makes insurance a lot harder to sell. you have to be able to make money, are you will not stay in the insurance business. we have had too little awareness and education getting people to sign up. it is an old thing that
insurance is sold and not bought. we might need to sell more of this. that is a big part of it. the experience of the boomers in carrying -- caring for their elders. >> president clinton once remarked that this is a high class problem we have, the extension of our life spans, but nonetheless, it is real challenge. >> thank you very much. >> you have expressed some optimism about the private long- term care insurance market. the individual market has not tried in recent years with premium increases some hot -- sometimes as high as 90%. on the other hand, northwestern is accompanied -- northwestern mutual has never had a premium increase. in your opinion, how can we
succeed with the long-term care insurance market in keeping -- getting people to participate in long-term care insurance? >> ultimately the costs are driven by the underlying cost of long-term care services. step number one is to work on those to the extent possible, and step no. 2 is, pull as effectively as you can, and makes you can get broader pools. that has always been a problem in individual markets. this is a very thin individual market at the moment. up by having people able to buy through their employer, that is the key to making that more successful. >> i love forward to seeing the profs document and i thank all be for testifying.
this is a very massive problem. people are not thinking in advance of those kind of things down the road. people generally have difficulty seeing daily and your activities through, and i think the comment you made about insurance being sold and not bought, the fact is, -- by the way, i have not signed up, either, and i may not, but it is a big problem. the cost associated with this, and i had to go back to that. i do appreciate your comments about customizing and making this is very customer or patience center. i agree with that. we are very aggressive and tennessee and seeking waivers and moving to community-based solutions. that was done by people on both sides of the aisle through the years. i think it has worked out very well for us. this is a massive, massive
problem, one that the finance committee and others here all need to be involved in dealing with. no doubt there is a public sector role, and at the same time, i have to say on the private side, trying to -- it sounds like northwestern mutual, who i do have a policy with, has done a good job of it, but the actuarial issues of being able to take in premiums now and know that it will deal with situations down the road is really, really tough. anyway, i thank you all for educating me today in coming here from other places, and i look forward to seeing you again. >> any other comments from members of the panel? thank you so much for being here. it is clearly complicated and terribly important, and have shedder lot of light, and thank you for coming.
if you have shed a lot of light. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> the space shuttle discovery is now on display at the smithsonian museum outside washington d.c. it arrived earlier this week. you can see the landing and the official transfer ceremonies tonight at 8 eastern on c-span. >> when i was embedded in afghanistan, the sober started telling me that the u.s. government was wasting tens of billions of dollars on totally mismanaged development and logistics contract. >> douglas wissing follows the
money in afghanistan and fines correction from top to bottom, right into the hands of the taliban. >> i was in one meeting where the brigade commander, colonel mike howard -- this is not long after president obama took office, and the state department was out there saying we are going to give you a whole bunch of developments. counterinsurgency. we are going to win hearts and minds, nation building. colonel howard said don't send me any more money, sending contract officers. i need people. i don't need more money. >> the douglaswissing on bankrolling the enemy, sunday night on "q&a". on may 6, look for our interview with robert carroll, that coincides with the release of power of the passage of power, volume 4, the years of lyndon johnson. >> on tuesday, citizens against
government waste released its annual report on earmarks in the federal budget. this year's congressional 2012 so-called pig book identified 152 earmarks, a 98% decrease from the 9129 earmarks in fiscal 2010. the annual report revealed that although earmarks have dropped drastically, numerous pet projects had still found their way into appropriations bills. this is 35 minutes. >> i am president citizens against government waste. since we publish the first pig book in 1991, our objective has been to el -- eventually eliminate your marks. in 2012, the congressional pig book shows that tremendous progress has been made toward that goal. there are only one had a 52 year marks, a record low. that is a 98.3% decrease from the 9129 in marks in fiscal year 2010.
the total cost is $3.30 billion, which is an 80% decrease from the $16.50 billion that was in the appropriations bill two years ago. there are no earmarked for museums, theaters, opera houses, bridges to know where -- bridges to nowhere. there is no state-by-state breakdown. many of the year marks since the year 2012 involve larger amounts of money and include fewer details than in prior years. for example, a $50 million caremark for the national guard counter trust program, which appears in the department of defense appropriations act, corresponds to 9 earmarks tolling $23 million in 2010. in that year the project appears in the congressional directed sending section at the end of the bill includes the names of members and location of the
project in accordance with the transparency rules. members also created new categories of your marks such as additional funding for ongoing work and a continuing of portis program all within the army corps of engineers inside the energy and water appropriations bill. unfortunately, in our view, are pure and cheer today also means that the congressional moratorium on earmarks has been violated. there has always been a difference in definitions and our view, some of them do appear to have violated the moratorium. we are on your to quibble over a definition. we are here to point out we have made all this progress thanks to the members here today, taxpayers, and certainly changed attitude on both sides of the aisle on capitol hill. there is far less transparency. it is not clear who asked for these remarks and he moneymaking phone calls to the various agencies after the bills of been
adopted and the money is sitting." , to ask them to send a particular project to a state or district. the next seven tracking year marks would be to enforce president bush's january 2008 executive order that each federal agency must release all communications from members of congress related to your marks. this cannot a coincidence that all of the programs in the 2012 congressional pig book correspond to past year marks. in addition, in november 2011, president obama reiterated that agencies should release letters from members and all contact the direct agency staff to respond to particular projects. as usual, the department of defense was a repository of the vast and george have earmarked, 61% in defense, $2 billion from the total. the senate was once again the source of for more earmarks than
the house. as those that could be identified, 77% of them originated in the senate. some of the year marks that appeared in prior years and that we think it violates the moratorium include $35 million for the national energy technology laboratory, $10 million for the chicago should dispersal bare, $8.90 million for san joaquin river restoration, and $3 million for product plant control. one of the longest-running your marks which receive $5.90 millwood this year is the east- west center in a white. it has received tenure marks -- in hawaii. it has received 10 earmarks. center daniel inouye admitted in 2007 that the project was created over the without any
hearings. a similar group, the north, south center stop receiving your marks in 2001. there's no doubt that funding for the east-west center would have on south were not located in the state of the senate appropriations committee chairman. one of the more egregious earmarks in the defense bill, $5 million added for a program that teaches science, technology, engineering and math to at risk youth and multiple locations at or near military bases around the country. since 2001, six earmarks costing taxpayers $90 million, have been directed toward this program. a gao report found that $3 billion was spent with 13 agencies for these programs, eliminating the star race program would drop that number all the way down to 208. because the moratorium is only temporary, center pat to me and
represented jeff blake, both of whom are not here today, have introduced a bipartisan earmarked elimination act which would establish a permanent ban on your marks. unfortunately, the senate rejected an amendment by a vote of 40-59, which is a lot more than we used to get to try to ban year marks. the bill introduced by congressman flake has not reach the floor of the house. that would be the full objective and would meet our original goal in 1991 of truly eliminating year marks. the effort to parmelee van year marks is essential. many members of congress -- to permanently banned earmarks is essential. a number of republicans have been clamoring for the restoration of your marks. represent a broader set earmarked required in order to
pass legislation, referring mostly to the transportation bill which has had trouble reaching the house floor, not because of a lack of your marks but because it is simply too expensive. senator reid has stated often that earmarking has been going on since we were country, and there is a constitutional obligation or congressional least directed spending. center in new way said he will continue to do everything he can inouye.enter and awa it is reasonable to conclude that the 59 members of the senate who voted against the amendment would like to continue having your marks. all the items in the 2012 congressional pig book, we are seven. criteria which was established in 1991 in conjunction with the bipartisan coalition.
the item must be requested by only the house or senate, not authorized common not competitively order, not requested by the president, greatly exceeding the president's budget request for the previous year's funding, or serves only a local or special interest. in the 2012 congressional pig book, all the earmarks have appeared in prior years. that means that since 1991,cagw has identified totals worth a total -- has identified your marks with a total of $11 billion. we like that to be the final number before finally banning year marks. i like to introduce senator john mccain, the longstanding attendee at the congressional pig book press conferences. >> thank you, tom, and thank you for your continued efforts and leadership.
i would like to thank my colleagues who are with me here today who not only oppose earmarks and wasteful pork- barrel spending but also take a very active role in opposing this kind of remarks and spending that results in corruption. our good friend, senator tom coburn, who is not here today, often said that your marks or the gateway drug to corruption in washington -- earmarks are the gateway drug to corruption in washington. we have seen that happen. i am very grateful for reich colleagues' efforts, for the efforts to have a permanent ban on earmarks -- for my colleague's efforts. if you think we are out of the woods because of reductions in earmarked spending, look at the vote in the u.s. senate that tom just mentioned.
59 members of the u.s. senate would still like to see the year marks come back. they would like to see bloated highway bills with poor rural projects in them. they would like to see -- my all-time favorite was the $50,000 to study the effect on the ozone layer of flatulence in cal's. -- flatulence in cows. we could see that come back. it is not easy when a constituent or important part of your state the time it comes to you and says we just need this small amount of additional money, and if you just write a letter or inserted in the appropriations bill, then we will be able to create jobs. take some courage to stand up. i am happy to see that so many of my colleagues have followed their lead. the fact is that there are already conversations about cannot pass a highway bill because they don't have enough earmarks in them.
isn't that a damning indictment of the mindset of members of congress that we cannot pass a bill unless we pay people off? tom, i thank you for that and appreciate your efforts. i want to mention one area that still goes on, and that is the defense authorization and appropriations bills. there are a year marks in the authorization bill as well as the appropriations bill. as tom mentioned, it is the willie sutton syndrome. he said it -- when asked why he robbed banks, he said that is where the money is. a great example is $120 million for three earmarks of $40 million each for "alternative energy research."
we are talking about cutting the army by 100,000 people and the marines by 80,000 people, yet we now have our armed services in the business of the best alternative energy research. the navy has led the parade. they spent in excess of four hundred dollars per gallon for about 20,000 gallons of county based biofuel. -- algae-based biofuel. the job of energy research should be in the energy department, not taking it out of defense department funds. i am not sure how many of the 21 years that you have been doing this i have been able to attend, but i think most of them -- i want to reiterate, tom, your reward for this work will be in heaven, not here on this earth. thank you very much. >> next we have senator jim
demint, who has been leading this effort very strongly but when he was in the house announced in the senate. >> thank you for years of work. it is a testament that persistence and long-suffering can actually change the way things are done in washington. i want to thank john mccain who has been a lot of our inspiration to take this on and to see in the last year and a half, actually get a temporary ban on earmarks. it was something that so many people said could never be done. we had been told for years that earmarked had nothing to do with passing big, over budget bills. as soon as they were suspended, suddenly these big bills have more difficulty going through. as john said, they had been used for years, and we all knew it, to drive, sweden, to get bills
through. we find that a lot of the bipartisanship here in washington is really all about spending. as long as we can spend money, republicans and democrats work together, if we can hand out the candy. we have stopped that temporarily, but tom, you know they are going to try in the next few weeks to redefine what and earmarked is. instead of fixing how we do care of suspensions, fixing that process, they want to redefine your marks so they can do it. instead of fixing all the corps of engineers works, which we could do and make it work better for the american people, they want to bring back earmarks three the same with the transportation bill. we and over half the senate probably half the house wants to bring back your marks. unless all the american people continue to be engaged, and make no mistake, the only reason
earmarks were banned temporarily is because americans found out about, particularly through citizens against government waste. candidates in the last cycle ran for banning earmarks. when they came in, they voted that way. we got rid of them, but now they have all been in washington for a while and it will be a little harder to keep it that way. hopefully we can get a new group coming in this cycle to campaign on banning year marks permanently -- banning it earmarks permanently. we have made some progress, but we cannot let up. we can push across the finish line. >> next we have senator packwood toomey -- center pat -- senator pat toomey. >> i want to congratulate you for standing here today.
you have been champions in this battle. it is fair to say that seldom do we have this much progress on such a challenging issue in washington as we have had in dramatically reducing the volume and cost of your marks. 98% reduction is really serious progress. i think we ought to celebrate that. but of course, the previous speakers were exactly right. that celebration cannot allow us to overlook the fact that our work is not done. there is every effort underway to resume this process, as we have heard, the problem of the year marks goes well beyond the several hundred billion dollars in earmarks that have been identified in recent years. i do think that a permanent ban is necessary. the legislation i have drafted to accomplish that by allowing any individual senator to go
down to the senate floor and offer a point of order against a in any givenrmarke bill. it would require a two-thirds vote by the senate to override .hat earmarke it is hard to get two-thirds of the senate to agree that this is april. it creates a very high hurdle, which is exactly what we ought to do. i am somewhat optimistic that we got the 40 votes. it is not the outcome that we need and want, but it is progress. this is the kind of thing that will require multiple votes. it will require input from constituents. the american people are overwhelmingly with us on this. they understand what a terrible process earmarking is and how it leads to other very bad outcomes. i think if we stay at this, and
thanks largely to tom's leadership, i think we will go from 98% unsuccessful 100% success, and i am going to stay in that fight. thanks very much. >> next we have congressman jeff flake who we hope to continue to see up here. he is another longstanding attendee and stalwart supporter for the elimination of earmarks. >> obviously we not -- we would not be celebrating what are today without your efforts. on the house floor, have challenged several hundred individual earmarks and do you know how many of those votes we won outright on the floor? just one. it was a republican earmarked
and the other party hated the republican more than they loved their earmarke. members would find out which earmarked for being challenged and that would rush to the floor so they could withdraw it rather than defend it. then you have a bridge to nowhere, and my personal favorite, i knew this process was going to come crashing down. i had challenged the earmark for the punxsutawney whether museum in punxsutawney, pa.. the sponsor of the year mark said they would show how vital the year mark was. the mayor of punxsutawney came with his top hat and his road and, phil, and that the brokerage time they pulled him out from behind the podium. i thought what a spectacle, and
the people did not know how out of control this process was, they certainly knew it then. so i am glad to be where we are. we have to go much further. pat toomey has introduced a great piece of legislation and i am happy to be the sponsor in the house to make this eqrarmark ban permanent. we should provide oversight on how the federal agencies spend money. if we don't think they are spending it correctly, we rain the men and establish parameters in which money is spent. -- rein them in. thank you again to citizens against government waste, and let's keep pushing until we can
make this permanent. >> i do need to interject that one of the most enjoyable occasions during all these years of examining earmarks was when we made punxsutawney phil the porker of the month. >> five years ago, i was sworn into congress in 2007. if someone had said we would have a ban on earmarks, no one would have predicted that. that is a testimony to tom and the citizens against government waste and the folks who have been up here talking. i want to commend everyone who has been involved in this effort for their work on this, and as jeff said, " we need to hold the agencies accountable. i want to highlight one program
that is driving me crazy. senator mccain references to what is going on right now in the department of energy is unbelievable. in this loan guarantee program, 27 companies got your tax dollars. 23 of those companies had ratings of double b minus from standard and poor's, which is another way of saying they are john graded. it was ok to put american taxpayer dollars into these organizations. eight of those 23 companies had close ties to the obama administration. we have to do exactly what congressman flake talked about and all these agencies accountable for the duty spending and the goofy programs they are promoting -- goofy spending and programs they are promoting. we are beginning to make
progress. >> we are well aware thatearkarms are not the only -- we are well aware that earmarks or not the only wasteful spending. >> thanks so much for the incredible work you have done over the last 21 years to make this book small. i remember when i was in the state senate, this book was a different shape, but it was a whole lot thicker. if you look at these charts over your, you will see that this is the least number of earmarks that have been put forward in congress, and where we have had a press conference to celebrate. we ought to be celebrating for a short time the decrease in numbers and the smallness of the book, but public policy is a process. if you think about what happened, the leadership in the
house of representatives changed. i want to commend the leadership in the house and my colleagues in the house of representatives for making certain that this is the slope of the graph that we see beside us here this morning. but public policy is a process. that does not mean it has to stay down there. with the incredible work of my colleagues in the house and those that are supportive in the senate, and the american people who are demanding accountability and transparency and comes to spending, and demand that we not load up larger pieces of legislation so they can get past, as other individuals have references morning. i am pleased to be back at this press conference and i look for to coming back next year to have a flat line on these charts to the left buried >> now we have congressman paul brown -- on these charts to the left.
>> i have been around politics for a long time. this is the smallest pig book i have seen. bob said, my people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. my colleagues are informing the american public about how their elected representatives are wasting their money. but i asked for questions about legislation. the first is, is that right? second, is it constitutional, according to their original intent? third, do we needed? fourth, can we afford it? tom, i wish all members of congress would use those same questions. then we would not be here talking about a year marks, because most of the spending and federal government is
unconstitutional, according to its original intent. the only way we will stop this year marking process and have a permanent ban is for american citizens to demand a different kind of governance. citizens against government waste are informing people about that wasteful spending. those people all across this nation are the reason we have a small pig book today. i want to remind you about former senator everett dirksen who said, when he feels that he, he sees the light. some of those people need to see the door. these earmarking processes that cause more people to go to jail than anything else. i congratulate citizens against government waste in their fight to end this year marking process and let's go back to
constitutional, limited government. for us to shrink the size of government and go forward so that we are financially viable as a country, is going to be critical for the american people to demand a stop the year marking process -- earmarking process. i congratulate the citizens against government waste and congratulate tom and the hard work he has done since 1991. keep up the great work, tom. >> thank you all for joining us today. thanks for putting together this
great pig book. we used to help local pigs and now we have to go out of state, but that is ok. we really appreciate them joining us as well. with that, i am happy to take questions and the members here as well if you have questions for them. please wait for the mike. bigou've got this transportation bill on the floor, having a hard time moving through. states cannot handle national transportation costs by themselves. there has to be federal money. is it the year marks --earmarks that you object to, or is it just the objection to spending. if it is that secrecy, does that
mean there is some way that this could be done and you guys would be happy to get them through the house? >> historically, 1956, interstate transportation act, to amend specific items mentioned in the bill. president reagan vetoed a bill that had $1.1 billion in earmarks. president bush signed a bill that had $24 billion in earmarks. so yes, it can be done. we may have to go back 100 years to look at the original idea, which was simply to base it on the formulas that congress has adopted. if the members do not like the formula, they can change it. but the bridge to nowhere was in the last highway bill. it was clearly a boondoggle, among many others. not only do this projects make it more difficult to achieve the goals of the transportation department, but the money for transportation starts from the
bottom up. the metropolitan planning organization, from the county and the state, they argue that the money should go back to the state and make them make the decisions. do any members want to comment on that as well? >> the congressman from georgia has a devolution amendment to the transportation bill. i hope we have the opportunity to vote on it. there is plenty of money. states can run it with the excise tax on fuel if we just send it back to the states. that is what a number of us are fighting to try to do. then we will not have the ear marking process. >> part of the problem with the highway bill is that as earmarks have increased, so that the amount of money diverted from the real priority that we have, particularly roads and bridges,
and going to museums or bike paths or something on the periphery like parks. it also means that states that have been treated shabbily in terms of the formula will finally have the opportunity to get more of their own formula funding back. arizona has never done better than none and went to some the dollar. the 91 cents on the dollar. it is a good thing. as senator mccain mentioned, those who were pushing the bill conceded it is tougher to move the bill without earmarks, and it should be. now we have to focus on policy, and that is a good thing. >> since september 2007, senator coburn was given a report from
the inspector general at the department reservation that discussed the impact of your marks on higher priorities at the department of transportation. one result was the faa high priority to our replacement program, which was three years .ehind because of earmarkes that was a perfect example of what happens when these earmarks interfere with plans that have been made at the agencies that the state and local levels. >> how are some lawmakers and groups still fighting success in getting this kind of projects funded fundedearmarks? >> -- getting this kind of projects funded without earmarks? >> the real question now is the
transparency after the fact. if all that money expense competitively, then maybe this moratorium has been adhered to. the problem is that no one knows what is going on at the agency level. text messages are certainly difficult to find. these contacts should be immediately released by the agencies. they really do not like these earmarks, either. the majority of federal agencies are happy they don't have to answer these phone calls for all these provisions that in the past that had nothing to do with their daily activities. they never received overhead to cover the cost of monitoring and spending money on these remarks. the house the coded -- voted to eliminate funding for the east- west center. so there is an effort all-around to get rid of even smaller and
less expensive air marks, and we think that will hopefully continue. to answer your question more specifically, since there are no names attached to them, we are not exactly sure who has asked for them, other than the most obvious. the fact that 77% that can be identified as originating from the house or senate came from the senate come in the case that the senate is again pushing these through. we would like to see a permanent ban, and then hopefully we would not have to do this anymore. any other questions? thank you all very much again. thank you again for joining us, and thanks to the members. >> thank you very much.
>> this weekend, live coverage from the los angeles times festival of books. coverage starts at 2:00 p.m. eastern today and sunday. later at 3:30 p.m., biographers on clarence darrow, dwight d. eisenhower, and jfk. call in with your questions for steven ross, sunday at 2 eastern, watch for eric alterman. the entire schedule for the weekend is online at booktv.org. we ask is to submit a video telling us what are the constitution is most important and why. today we will go to birmingham, alabama, to visit with talia
moore, an eighth grader at john herbert phillips academy. what did you choose to focus on the first amendment as the topic of your documentary? >> as a birmingham native, i thought it would be great to what better place in birmingham for the civil rights movement. my first place was west park. all the african-american school boys in school girls left from their classrooms to go and march for their freedom. >> how do the different sides utilize success first amendment? >> the foot soldier's really, really used freedom of speech when they chanted at the march. i think dr. martin luther king really want to see the world and
a better place. >> what about the other side? >> the birmingham health commissioner back in the 1960's the of laws that said there were war costs and laws against boycott. he said that we -- african- americans should not do that. he used his first amendment rights. he petitioned them saying they should not be able to have the same rights -- they should be able to have the same rights as caucasians. i believe the first amendment -- if the first amendment has not been part of the bill of rights, we would not have civil rights voting or would not have the civil rights act. i think that the first amendment truly is the best of men and in the constitution. allows us really the best amendment and the constitution.
we would not have any creative ways for people in the world. that is a great way for innovation. >> closure favre part about making the video? >> my favorite part -- what was your favorite part about making the video? >> lefever par would be running around with the camera, shooting video footage. -- my favorite part. we wanted to shoot everything on dr. martin luther king day back in january. we got a lot of odd staires. i want to put as many people as i could in there, whether they are bystanders or not. i would like for people to know that you should not take life for granted. you should go out and help the
world, do what you can do to make the world better place. you only have one life and you really need to live it to the fullest. >> thanks, and congratulations again on your win. here is a portion of her video, birmingham and the first amendment. >> klansmen were waiting nearby. he was brutally beaten with chains and brass knuckles. he was history -- he was crucial to the history of the school. we have a diverse enrollments. the principle of the school, would not be in the position he is in now without the first amendment. >> brown versus board of education did pass. he also uses freedom of speech. all those things are important in our school because of the
history we have here. children like yourself who are coming along are able to have the freedoms that many people in the past did not have. >> you can watch this in video in its entirety as well as all the other winning entries on our website, and continue the conversation on our facebook and twitter pages. >> from the colonial era, prohibition, to today, drinking, for better or worse, has always been part of the american landscape. tonight, live on american history tv, a history of alcohol in america. watch our simulcast and our panel regaled with tales of beer and spirits in america. part of american history tv this weekend on c-span3. >> on wednesday, former u.s. government officials told congress that north korea will most likely conduct another nuclear test, following the
country's recent failed rocket launch. the spot promising to suspend long-range missile tests, north korea staged a missile launch. the house foreign affairs committee discussed dynamics under the new leader, kim jong un could this is about 90 minutes. >> welcome to my fellow members of the committee and to our distinguished panel of witnesses who are joining us today. after recognizing myself and the ranking member, my good friend from california for seven minutes each for our opening statements, i will recognize the chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee on asian and pacific for three minutes, followed by one minute statements from each committee member who wishes to speak.
prepared statements of all our witnesses will be made of part of the permanent record and there will be five days to insert statements and questions for the record. the chair now recognizes herself for seven minutes. today we will examine the tumultuous events that have again consume to the korean peninsula. in a sense, negotiating with north korea is similar to the less repetition presented in the film "groundhog day." a withdrawal from negotiations followed by a provocative action. dexter is a wink from the united states and its allies with concessions offered. -- then there is a wooing from the united states and its
allies. it was so with the clinton and bush administration and has come to pass as well with the obama administration. president clinton's frank worked in the with the disclosure of pyongyang highly enriched uranium program. it was met with the construction of a secret nuclear reactor in syria which israel thankfully destroyed, and in yet another betrayal. the obama administration is confronted with the abject failure of its deal on february 29 with north korea has refused to send witnesses who were privy to the beijing negotiations to testify today at our hearing. kim jong il had responded to obama's inaugural overture of an
outstretched hand by kidnapping two u.s. journalists, firing a missile, setting off a nuclear weapon, sinking a south korean naval vessel, and shelling of south korean island. his son, kim jong un, seems fully intent on fulfilling the old adage that the apple does not fall far from the tree. he has already tried and failed missile launch and may be plotting yet a third nuclear test. the un security council issued a presidential statement condemning the april 13 missile launch as a serious violation of security council resolutions 17, 18, and 1874. no real consequences for north korea's flagrant violation and action that threaten global peace and security. while the missiles blew up soon after leaving the launch pad, as all of us know, it is said that and in -- in international relations, measuring intent is
just as important as measuring capability. north korea's rhetoric should have told our negotiations -- our negotiators all the needed to know. the south korean defense ministry estimated this month that the north koreans spent $850 million on the failed missile launch, enough to buy corn to feed the entire population or an entire year. politics in north korea remains all about the kim dynasty and its needs, not the concerns of the nine states or the welfare of the korean people. a particularly unfortunate result of a lead they agreement was the combining of discussions of nuclear disarmament and food in -- food assistance at the same negotiating table. this was a departure of the approach about the clinton administration and the bush administration, which held to the reagan doctrine that a
hungry child knows no politics. it also led to a highly embarrassing reversal on the food aid decision following the missile launch, even as administration officials insisted that there was no direct link between food assistance and the failed negotiations. our distinguished panel of experts can shed light today on whether succession of the old kim to the young has changed anything in north korea or is that merelyold kim in a new uniform. then there is a pressing question how we should respond to future provocation, including another nuclear test. we also wish to examine how we should go forward and dressing the north korean crisis, a rogue state in possession of nuclear weapons working on delivery capability, engaged in leveraged activities with opponents of the united states in the middle east
and south asia. the un general and sunday's military parade every indication the trouble lies just ahead with north korea. he viewed tanks and missiles as they paraded through the no. 3 in cattle and the celebration of the 100th anniversary of his grandfather's birth. in his first public remarks, the bombastic and warned that "the days of enemies threatening and blackmailing us with nuclear weapons are for ever over." the new kim looks and acts suspiciously very much like the old kim. here is a brief video of the cold war military parade held on sunday in pyongyang that clearly illustrates the nature and the priorities of the north korean regime. if we could show a clip.
[video clip] >> the flag will always encouraging lead us to the new victory. >> the untested young leader, thought to be in his late 20s, prompted outrage after going ahead with the rocket, but despite its failure, it is seen as a message not just to north koreans but the rest of the world as well. >> thank you very much. i am pleased to turn to my good friend, the ranking member of our committee, mr. berman of california, for his opening statement. >> thank you very much, madam chair, for calling a very timely hearing. it is interesting to know before i begin my opening statement that the parade we just saw that clip from showed a tract she'd
-- showed a truck carrying a north korean missile that looked very much like a similar chinese truck. there are resolutions regarding exports to north korea at this point. the failed missile launch which was a clear violation of u.n. security council resolutions and carried out in defiance of strong international pressure demonstrates that north korea, under kim jong un, is essentially the same as when it was ruled by his father and grandfather. indeed, north korean leaders have shown a remarkable -- remarkable consistency in reneging on the the latest being the lead day agreement. with the possibility of another nuclear test on the horizon,
pyongyang is showing it's clear preference for provocative and destabilizing behavior. president reagan famously remark that when dealing with the soviet union, you should trust but verify. with regard to north korea, he might have said never trust, and never ceased to verify. the fun of the questions before us today are how can the united states and the rest of the world change the north's behavior? is change even possible? if not, what should be the appropriate course of action to mitigate the north korean threat? successive presidents, both republican and democratic, have pursued a policy of " tough engagements" with pyongyang. given north korea's proclivity to break agreements before the ink is dry, does it make sense to continue this approach? if not, what is the alternative? are there additional sanctions be good place on north korea
that would change their behavior? does it make sense to tie food aid to specific actions taken by the north? at a minimum, i believe the u.s. should do everything possible to ensure that existing un security council resolutions on north korea are fully implemented, and i welcome the recent security council presidential statement indicating that additional entities involved in north korea's proliferation activities will be sanctioned in coming days. we must also continue to coordinate closely with our south korean and japanese allies on how to best address the north korean threat while maintaining a robust u.s. military presence in those countries. time remains one of the few nations with some leverage over north korea. regrettably, beijing has been unwilling to use that leverage to persuade pyongyang to change course. while china may have expressed
its displeasure with the north's recent missile launch, the fact remains that beijing serves as pyongyang's economic lifeline, sending food and fuel to prop up the north korean regime and luxury goods to satisfy the north korean elite. china continues to play this role because beijing fears a flood of refugees from an unstable north korea more than a nuclear north korea armed with ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons. my guess is that beijing also likes having a buffer between itself and south korea, a strong u.s. ally. by enabling the north korean regime is aggressive and reckless behavior, which threatens regional stability, china in up undermining its own security calculus. just what kind of regime is south korea backing? life under the youngkim is as
bleak as ever, with the average person enjoying no real religious our personal freedoms. hundreds of thousands of political prisoners remain in prison in gulags. others endeavour to skate by any means possible, even if it means crossing into china, where many refugees are forced into prostitution and hard labor. despite the north's efforts to appear "strong and prosperous," beshear to celebrate the hundredth birthday of the country's founders, vast numbers of north koreans continue to face starvation. the no. 3 in the gene is misguided priorities, pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into a so-called space program, its nuclear programs, and its massive military, only _ it's cold hearted callousness and blatant disregard for its own people. china's willingness to support such a wicked regime has a dark
shadow which cast a dark shadow on beijing's own international reputation. i thank the panel of experts for being here this morning and look forward to their thoughts on how to make our policy toward north korea more effective. i yelled back. >> we will give three minutes to the chairman of the subcommittee on non-proliferation and trade. >> mr. berman was just talking about the magnitude of the human rights abuses there. in terms of the sheer numbers, this is the worst human rights abuser on the planet today. for any of us in these hearings to have heard the testimony or met up with defectors in china or south korea, it is a truly appalling. when you think about the cost of this launch, at least a half billion dollar cost of this launch. i have been in north korea. there is no way that regime
could squeeze pennies out of the populace in north korea to get this hard-currency -- it requires for the most part, a funding source outside the country. frankly, if china were rather by north korea's icbm's, if it were bothered by north korea's new will track nuclear program, it would stop subsidizing them. it would stop funding these operations. a policy it tackling north korea's illicit activities which brings money from outside the country, whether the sale of a mess and heroin, they do a lot of that, or the sale of -- whether the sale of meth and heroin, that is the way to weaken the regime.
as we will hear today, until it was dropped in favor of an alternative course of action in 2006, the treasury department's went after north korea's funds bank. in a moscoacau many ships were stopped, and cut off the flow of currency into the regime, and that prevented, for a while, the government' rigid the missile program shut down did they could not by gyroscopes on the black market for their missiles. they were paying a premium on the black market to get those. they could no longer fund that. for eight months, that program was shut down, until we reversed
course and the money began to course back through the veins of the regime. this is what their head propagandist who defected to the united states told us. the number one goal is to get access to funds for their nuclear an icbm program. it would require some energy and creativity, some focus, and i would say that has been disturbingly absent today in terms of how we address this problem. for those of us that want to see a long-term solution, i think cut off the flow of illicit activities. look at what we did with the macau banks in terms of reinforcing that type of discipline. begin the process of the right kind of broad cast into north korea to begin a process of turning things around. >> mr. ackerman is next.
>> i thank the chair. i think you kids have got it covered. >> thank you for calling this important hearing regarding north korea and the future of the korean peninsula. north korea would kim jong un will remain just as unstable and dangerous as it was. the hope that kim jong un would take a broader pact failed with the missile launch. given north korea's erratic behavior recently and over the course of the past several
years, the goal of denuclearization seems farther away. if north korea proceeds with testing a nuclear weapon, as it likely made to it prior behavior is any indicator, the talks most forcibly be done. the future of north korea is bleak. it is the people of north korea that will bear the unimaginable hardship of kim jong un's tierney. t --yranny. i hope our distinguished witnesses today will address the human rights tragedy as it relates to any possible negotiation with north korea in the future. thank you again for calling this hearing. i look forward to hearing the
testimony of our witnesses. >> thank you for your attendance always. >> thank you for holding this hearing. over more than five decades, the u.s. has strengthened its alliance and bolstered a lasting relationship with south korea. efforts to achieve peace with north korea have proven elusive and globally frustrating. with the passing of one leader and the emergence of another, now more than ever, the united states must hold north korea accountable for its actions which continue to undercut peace and reconciliation on the korean peninsula. i had the opportunity to go to the demilitarized zone, and looking at because -- it seemed almost like a scene out of history, looking back to the 1950's, at the level of tensions between the north and south. i am looking forward to comments that the panel might have about
the new leader. the world recently watched as north korea failed to launch a rocket that many believe will be used to wage war. events like this shed light on the reality of the north in a society where many live in fear. thank you for coming today. >> thank you for calling this timely hearing. since the obama administration came to office, its foreign policy has been characterized by so-called engagement. the president has defined this policy as extending an outstretched hand in hopes that the mere gesture would cause some of the world's most brutal dictators to unclench their fists. the administration's engagement efforts within basher alice thought of syria, the british regime in tehran, for example, those -- with bashar al-assad.
as einstein noted, insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results, and yet that appears to be precisely what this administration has been doing in north korea as well as the middle east. sed,oon as one dictator pas kim jong un appears to be a chip off the a lot. this will not work and it should be reversed. >> thank you very much. i am pleased to recognize and introduce our panelists. we will first hear from frederick -- currently the managing director of the langley intelligence group network. he served as senior analyst with the cia for almost two decades prior and was chief of staff to the under secretary of
state for arms control and international security. he became a professional staff member with the house permanent select committee on intelligence in 2006, acting as a senior adviser to the committee chairman. welcome back. then i would like to welcome dr. michael greene, a senior adviser and japan share at the center for strategic and international studies. he previously served as special assistant to the president for national security affairs and senior director for asian affairs at the national security council in the george w. bush and administration.
mr. snyder was a senior associate in the international relations program of the asia foundation where he founded and directed the center for u.s. career policy and served as the asia foundation is represented in korea from the year 2000- 2004. finally we welcome patrick cronin, senior advisor and senior director of the asia- pacific security program at the center for new american security. previously dr. grodin was the director of the institute for national strategic studies at the national defense university and has had a 25-year career inside government and academic research centers. thank you. we welcome our panelists today and i ask that our witnesses please keep your presentation to no more than five minutes. without objection, the entire written statements of the witnesses will be inserted into the hearing record.
we will begin with mr. fleiss. >> it is an honor to be here today. i enjoyed working with you and the house intelligence staff. i am managing director of the langley intelligence group network, a washington d.c.-based global forecasting an intelligence service. i formerly worked for the cia and the state department. my remarks today will focus on north korea's wmd and rocket program. last week's rocket launch that north korea claims was intended to lift the satellite into orbit but was probably a test of an icbm. it was consistent with north korea's past behavior. although it may seem counterproductive coming after a food aid agreement was reached,
north korea has done this before. there has been a cycle of apparent north korea agreement followed by complications and the new agreements. pyongyang has learned that a matter how badly it acts, the u.s. will eventually come back to the negotiating table, usually with new concessions. it is possible that last week's missile launch was intended to test -- intended to test america's resolve. pyongyang may have been tempted to see how far it could push washington. north korea may have believed with u.s. distracted by afghanistan and iran, u.s. officials would be reluctant to confront kong hang over the missile launch. it is worth noting that international reaction to the launch was fairly weak. the un security council this week was only able to pass a nonbinding residential -- presidential statement. despite speeches by u.s.
officials condemning the launch, the u.s.'s aware that the un response was mild and probably believes u.s. convoys will address again soon. north korea angrily responded to the security council statement but we don't know if this was a face saving bravado or a real effort to ratchet up tensions. it does seem that north korea plans more rocket launches. some experts complain that past practice with intelligence suggests north korea could follow up last week's rocket launch with the nuclear test. i am reluctant to make such a prediction for a number of reasons i outlined my prepared testimony. despite reports of activity, i should note that such activity is very common. given the country's extreme secrecy and the counterintelligence prices, i doubt very much there would be any definitive it satellite imagery of a north korean test preparation before pyongyang announced that a test would take
place. whether or not there is a north korean nuclear test in the short term, it's the wmd programs are extremely dangerous. it is believed kim jong un's hold on power is probably secure. while other weapons, chemical weapons, ballistic missiles, and nuclear weapons. while the u.s. intelligence community has publicly stated it does not know whether north korea has nuclear weapons, it said in february 2009 at the country is capable of producing them and has enough plutonium for about six nuclear bombs. i want to point out that two months after the figure was released, north korea told the iaea that it had decided to reactivate nuclear facilities and go ahead with the processing of spent fuel. north korea may have amassed several more weapons with plutonium since april 2009.
it may have get even more nuclear weapons. we now know after years of arguing or with the u.s. government, north korea a uranium enrichment program. it was worked on over and expended -- and extended period. north koreans wmd program is a special concern as is its reactor that we have to think about very closely with the possible breakdown of the syrian state. i want to know that i believe north korea and iran closely watch each other's diplomacy with the united states. if israeli prime minister ,etanyahu's claim is accurate it will have a significant effect on north korea's negotiating posture when u.s. officials tried to resume diplomatic talks. the reverse is probably true.
thank you, madam chairman, and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you very much. dr. green? >> thank you for inviting us to testify on this important subject. i have a concern about the human rights situation and humanitarian food aid issues but we like to focus on three issues for now prefers, why does north korea do this so soon after the league day agreement? second, does it mean we now have a breather because the icbm test failed, and third, what should we do? i don't think we should be surprised. late last year i wrote a number of public things predicting the north koreans would do in missiles or nuclear test in the first half of this year because they have been talking out this for some time in their propaganda. this is 2012, the year north korea said it would be a full nuclear weapon states.
in 2006 they tested a similar missile and were condemned by the un. in 2009, they tested eight similar ballistic missile and were condemned by the un. it is thought unreasonable to suspect that in the next few months we will see a nuclear test, based on the historical pattern. the pattern is this. we can now take a breather, there is a lull, having expressed their disapproval. i don't think so. i think we are probably looking at increased escalation from no. 3 in the coming months. if they do a nuclear test and if it is plutonium base, we will learn a lot. the first two tests yielded about one killick ton and about four kelli tons. the nagasaki bomb by comparison
was 20. it could be a test on the uranium richard -- uranium enrichment program, which many commentators said could not be real until the north actually showed exports their centrifuges. your brain tests would be very dangerous it -- a uranium test would be very dangerous. i would encourage a focus on the danger of transfer. 2003, the north korean delegation told the american delegation that if we did not in our hostile policies, it would transfer their nuclear weapons -- nuclear weapons capability to a third country. we found the uranium hexachloride traces from north korea. in 2007, a nuclear reactor complex was bombed that was
built by the north koreans. there were discussions between burma and north korea on nuclear connections. the north is clearly heading towards a nuclear weapons capability, deliverable for ballistic missiles or your country transfer. our efforts have slowed. it is said north korea will not negotiate under pressure. the historical pattern is north korea will not negotiate unless there is pressure. the security council resolutions and sanctions passed in the wake of the last two nuclear tests are not being implemented. ranking member berman pointed out the mobile launcher.
that is probably chinese-made system. i have seen in japanese photojournalist collection of north korean trading companies openly operating in china that are on the sanctions list. the sanctions have not meant anything since it was originally charged look at this in 2009. although the administration effectively mobilized cooperation after the north korean attack in 2010, we have backed off. we have to consider moving away from capability to manage at two regional conflicts. our ability to do to front wars will be one of their important considerations as they seek to liberate this out. -- to liberate the south. i think there is no deep harmon
talking with north korea. it is an important aspect of our diplomacy, but i think the national security council meetings on north korea should begin with pressure, coercion, implementation of sanctions, and at the end, consider where the diplomatic engagement piece fits in. i think we have that backwards for some time. thank you. >> it is and honor to appear before the committee. my colleagues have already covered a number of main points related to security council statement and north korean response. i think it is clear that we are in the middle of a dynamic very similar to the one we saw in 2009, where the likelihood of additional escalation exists. we are facing a defiant sovereignty focused new regime. i want to address two toppings,
one is the failings of the lead they agreement, which have already been pointed out in the initial statements. namely the concern about the linkage of food to the negotiations with north korea, which i agree was a mistake and should have been dealt with separately. i go into that in some detail in my testimony. then i think also the failure to state -- the u.s. statement very clearly that a satellite test would be considered as part of a long-range missile, and not acceptable for north korea. clearly, the efforts so far that we have just seen have not changed. north korea's behavior -- have not changed north korea's behavior. how do we change north korea's behavior? the way to do this is to focus on changing the environment for
north korea in a way that influences its strategic options rather than trying to negotiate carrots and sticks directly with north korea as a vehicle by which to do that. change the environment and then talk to them to determine whether we are seeing the type of change that we need to see. and of course, we have seen in the case of burma recently a good example of a situation where the leadership has made it a strategic choice to change, and then the u.s. has found some traction in terms of responding. how do we change the environment? one fundamental challenge that we have faced in the face of north korean provocations has been a failure to hold north korea accountable for its actions. this, i think, is particularly important in the context of a
lion score nation. different provocations by no. 3 evoke different levels of response -- by north korea. we saw the case where a conventional provocation against south korea evoked a strong response from south korea, and the u.s. was focused on trying to make sure that south korea did not respond in a way to escalate it. likewise it seems to me that the south korean response to the rocket launch, in terms of public response, was not that strong. so the question of how we essentially show that there is a price for provocation. second, i think we need to minimize reliance on china of continuing to operate with them in a limited way. it is clear that the chinese have their own interests in promotion of north korean stability, and this is creating
a gap in terms of expectations. we should not be relying on china as a way of trying to pursue operation north korea. increasingly, this is a regime that is not isolated. it is partially integrated with the outside world. we need to look carefully at whether or not that need for external funds that has already been addressed in various ways, for instance, illicit activities, might also provide an opportunity for us. the sanctions only approach means that the front door has been closed, but as long as china leaves the back door open, it is not going to work. i think we need to find a way to exploit north korea's partial integration with its neighbors as a way of drawing the north koreans out. if the north korean regime decides to move in the direction of reform, and this country that
we don't have much evidence that they have decided to, the fact of the matter is that they don't have the technical specialist to be a will to do it even if they want to do it. we need to find ways to expose north koreans to long-range educational opportunities that will socialize them to western ways of thinking as a way of inducing internal change in north korea. >> thank you very much and to all of our panelist for excellent testimony. dr. curran, i am sorry. i am so used to going that way. -- dr. cronin. >> thank you for this invitation on these timely proceedings. it is my judgment that the regime in pyongyang indeed remains armed and dangerous and prone to miscalculation. the moment we think we know the next move of kim jong un is the
moment we are going to be surprised yet again. we have heard about some of the tactical rigid tactical mistakes a recent policy. i want to focus on strategy in the interest of time. my main argument is that the u.s. lacks an effective long- term strategy for achieving peace on the korean peninsula. despite a strong alliance with south korea, we are gradually losing leverage over an opaque regime in north korea, determined to acquire nuclear weapons designed to hit american soil. we lack direct contact with north korea's collective leadership. we rely far too much on secondhand information. a new strategy, which is difficult to put together a -- of the not suggest this is easy. it is the new ones that will matter. nonetheless, the new strategy i propose looks at five building blocks we need to mix together. those areas are strengthening defenses, strengthen alliances, creating a crippling new targeted financial measures, but
also establishing direct high- level contact with north korea's leaders, if only to facilitate political fissures, and using engagement and information to dramatically slow the impression into and out of north korea. we have no intercept capacity to this combined with our mid fe's defenses would help us and our allies make sure we could knock this missile down the next time this happens. second, we need to further reinforce the military capabilities and the interoperable to between the u.s., south korean, u.s. japan and all three countries. comprehensive missile defenses need to be matched with greater integration of command-and- control. additional steps should be taken to give higher priority to u.s. forces in korea.
a command has inevitably suffer from a decade-long priorities placed on the conflicts in afghanistan and iraq. third, we need to move beyond ineffective sanctions to find new means of applying real pain on recalcitrant leaders to flagrantly but international security at risk. the u.s. can use the combined force of government and the private sector to clamp down on the mostly chinese banks that the north leadership relies on to find leaders in the military party in ruling circles. we need precision guided financial measures that go as far as those attempts -- attempted several years ago to squeeze key decision makers. this could bring about change. fourth, the u.s. should seek to use serious pressure in defense tactic is to open up more direct high-level talks with kim jong un and to retrieve general central to a collective leadership. there is a political objective
to our pressure and force. it is opening up those real talks that will matter. only by winning access to the inner circle of north korea can we hope to determine potential fault lines and opportunities. long-term engagement will make us smarter about what kind of transition may be possible for north korea while preparing us for a hard landing, should the regina implode. finally, the u.s. and south korea should expand their efforts on the flow of information into north korea. the flow of information -- coupled with engagement, we can expand that information and it will start to change. defense, allies, financial managers, and high-level engagement of the building blocks for new strategic approach. put together properly within the next decade, we could move north korea away from its regular cycle of provocation and prevarication and human rights abuses to something much better.
thank you very much. >> i admire your optimism. now i thank all of the witnesses, and my apologies for cutting you off. i wanted to ask about the third nuclear test, about the influence of china and cooperation with of korea. -- with north korea and iran. experts are expecting that north career will in the conduct a third nuclear test, especially since the young general lost face with this fizzled missile launch. do you anticipate any future weapons tested will be plutonium based as in the past, or will it be triggered by highly enriched uranium, demonstrating an alternative nuclear weapons system for pyongyang, and what should the u.s. response be to such a test? following that, china's influence. as we read in press reports,
china likely provided that mobile long-range missile launcher which north korea put on display. this would obviously be in violation of u.n. security council resolution 1874, and china as a permanent member of the security council is obligated to uphold sanctions. how involved is the people's liberation army in the development and supply of weapons to the north korean military? do we expect chinese technical support for the development of north korean missile technology? japanese media had reported that a 12-member iranian delegation of missile and satellite development specialists secretly visited north korea recently. the report says that this is by no means a recent occurrence or
an isolated occurrence. what other activities such as nuclear weapons, the design and development, have this regime collaborated on the that we have not seen in public reporting as of yet? >> i think the issue of a third nuclear test is sort of the parlor game in washington right now, when and if there will be a test. i have talked to a number of experts and many said there will be a test. i think the chances are less than 50-50 right now. i think there will be a nuclear test eventually win no. 3 is technically ready and prepared to endure the enormous amount of isolation it will endure, more than it already has. but they have to conduct nuclear tests because we have to assume they are developing nuclear designs. eventually there will be a test of that kind. i am hoping the stages before
and after the rocket launch suggest there may be a line they are not prepared to cross right now. frankly, all bets are off with this country. anything is possible. missile tests may be board threatening because they could land on japan or hawaii. it is the delivery system for nuclear warhead. it is something they are using to advertise their missile technology. it is certain there was an iranian delegation that was closely watching this missile tests. i believe there probably has been some type of collaboration the screen the iranians in north koreans in the nuclear sphere. i have always believed that the reactor in the syrian desert probably had some role from iran, maybe it was being built so iran could somehow acquire
plutonium core the technology to make plutonium in an area the iaea could not detect. i think this is a very dangerous situation, but in turning the issue of what third nuclear test, is hard to judge -- concerning the issue of a third nuclear test. >> the historical pattern that suggests they will do nuclear tests, the propaganda of recent years declaring 2012 the year north korea would be a nuclear weapons state, would also suggested. when experts were shown the in cranium, -- iranian in -- uranium enrichment plant, it is the tip of the icebergs. i think they are close to doing a uranium test. it would raise the asking price for any future negotiations. i would say they will do it and we may be looking at a uranium
test, but we don't know. enriched uranium is much easier to hide. it does not give a signal in the atmosphere. what we saw was more a matter of negligence than malicious support for north korea, but is one area where we should be pressing the chinese quite hard. >> mr. berman is recognized. >> while each of you emphasize different issues, it does not seem to be a clash of approaches. i want to focus on china, but before i do that, you said
something that caught my attention, that there are sanctions entities openly doing business in china. did i hear that right? if i did, does that say something about a presidential statement which talks about expanding the sanctions and these not being worth a lot? is that the implication of what you are saying? >> i have seen the japanese -- the photos taken of the trading company on the sanction list open. the chinese are not implementing the sanctions. the security council is blocking any effort to add new entities are do any sort of further steps. the presidential statement was
interesting. did reference examining new entities. that is a positive element. now we have to follow up on it. part of the problem beijing has since is the foreign ministry, which controls that decision, rarely can implement within china. a lot of it is this functionality in the huge, complex chinese system. i think we could do more in our discussions with the chinese to get beijing to do more. china, then.o is that little glimmer in the presidential statement any real sign that china is reconsidering its stability first policy towards north korea? in other words, is it a fool's errand to try to secure stronger cooperation from beijing and
trying to change kong hang's behavior, given that the chinese security council seems to be so different than ours or some other countries in the region? >> i would note that this was a presidential statement and it is not binding. this is what we resort to we cannot get china and russia to agree to binding language. this is a fallback position. >> i get you, it is non-binding. to the bigger question, is there any reason to have any hope that china is going to change its calculus, that a diplomatic push on china, who is so important to doing some of the things you suggested need to be done, in terms of stopping what north
korea gets in order to fund and implement its program. is there anything out there that would indicate there is anything about chinese behavior that might change, based on this most recent activity? >> the chinese have already met with kim jong un, and i assume that urged him not to conduct this missile test, and he ignored them. i think the chinese would like to restart multilateral talks under the sponsorship and our problem are reworking on that. i don't think china -- are probably already working on that. i think they are simply going to put it behind them. >> anyone else have any thoughts? >> panel of experts implementing the security council resolution have a chinese expert on it. his job is to keep the committee from adopting anything that would be critical toward china. so there are real limits to the instrument that the
presidential -- with regard into china's broader strategic organization, it is clear there focused on stability, and the reason the presidential statement went as far as it did was simply because president hu had so much blow back when he was in seoul. >> the chinese are going to keep their stability first policy. they will do what they can to lower actions by us or north korea that get in a way of the process of talking. i think appealing to china's self-interest have limited utility. they have made their calculations. part of our strategy has to be changing the atmosphere. that is why the trilateral missile defense is so important. if they are not willing to use
leverage effectively on north korea, the only path we have to take involves stretching our relations with allies. if we are not changing their calculations, we are just appealing to their self- interest, we will not get much of a change. >> thank you. >> i'm going to test for the moment, madam chair. >> i am sorry i was a little late. the failed rocket launch cost $850 million, they estimate. i have before me a report the says that would have bought two 0.5 million tons of corn, 1.5
million pounds of rice. why did they launch that when they knew it was a direct violation of the agreement? they said they were going to have a hiatus on -- let's see -- they want us to halt nuclear tests, and allow the iaea inspectors into the country after the hiatus. they turn around and launch the missiles. how do you deal with that? you indicate that we should continue to negotiate, but every time we try, they stick us right in the year. in 2012, we have had both presidential and present -- congressional elections in the u.s..
south korea will be this year. in north korea was supposed to develop into a strong and prosperous nation. it would appear these elements could form a perfect storm. the expect north korea to continue to saber rattling and provoke aggressive behavior to impact the election cycle in south korea? the final question, i know i am preaching to the choir when i say south korea is one of our closest allies. we even passed a free-trade agreement, and i am glad the president signed that. given the ever present dangers posed by north korea and the regime, what can we do here in congress and in washington to create a more stable environment, and i am not talking about signing another agreement with the state department did saying they were going to do certain things, then they turn around and violate it.
mr. frederick fleitz? >> thank you, sir. i think the launch of the rocket is consistent with a historical pattern, of north korea making agreements, and then provoking -- >> why do we keep taking index ---? -- why do we keep cave in? we do not even know if the food gets there. they take the money they were going to use for food, and a launch another missile. >> i think that is right. >> it just seems like our government, under democrats and republicans, we have reached out, trying to negotiate, and i do not see where we have gained a thing. >> it was a mistake to link the new clear issues to the food
deal. >> why? >> i do not think the north korean people should suffer from the country's proliferation. >> wait a minute, does the government to distribute the food that we did to them? >> that was the point was going to make. >> you say we are not supposed to tie this together, but why give them food. >> they should not get food unless there are the verification provisions. >> they will not agree to that, are they? >> they should. >> i would agree. >> we have to honor our friends, the japanese. a provision is that the people kidnapped by the north korean garden, maybe hundreds of them -- this was supposed to be part of the sixth-party talks. >> it is terrible that those people are held, but to negotiate based upon fair and
that they might do this or that is a sign of weakness. i cannot understand why our government, whether republican or government -- democrat, we continue to negotiate with terrorists and terrorist organizations that continue to say they're going to do one thing, and violate the other? all the way back to the clinton administration, i remember when we negotiated for the reactor, what was it? the light water reactor. they violated that could >> we offered two. >> i know. i do not understand the mentality. >> very good point. thank you, mr. burton. mr. gerry connolly is recognized. >> thank you, madam chairman. mr. snyder, the idea of why we were did not -- negotiate with,
or being gauged with a criminal regime -- some might observe that in a very early weeks of the new, then, george w. bush administration, president bush actually publicly overruled his incoming secretary of state said we're going to continue the policy of engagement and negotiations of the clinton administration, and president bush said no, we are not, and what followed was a much more aggressive north korean pursuit of the nuclear program. would that be a fair statement? >> yes, i think that that is an accurate characterization of what happened. >> so, while one can understand the concerns raised by my colleague, and i share them, on the other hand, the idea of "let's not engage, let's have a policy of hostility," has
consequences given the ability of nuclear to pursue a nuclear program. would that be a fair statement? >> i think that there needs to be some kind of communication with north korea in order to be able to manage and handled miscalculations. >> ok. dr. green? >> if you will indulge me, i was in the white house at that time, and more accurate description would be that george bush was told that you should continue what president clinton was thinking, which was to go to north korea, and they thought we need to reduce -- real our policy, and it put out a statement saying they would engage with north korea. i do not think it was a rejection of engagement.
it was a request for a time to give edmonton -- administration strategy in place because there had been problems in the past over several administrations. >> fair point, but i do remember with some surprise secretary, and paul having his wings clipped a little bit, which might have also inadvertently sent a signal that had some consequences. i do not know. i think we are in between a rock and a hard place. i share the concern. let me ask you, dr. green, mr. frederick fleitz, the issue for me, and for others, is efficacy. right after we provided food aid to north korea recently, they announced their intention to test a new rocket, or the existing rocket. how do we handle this issue of
the efficacy? we do not want millions of people to starve, but that kind of engagement, in terms of the provision of assistance, seems to have very limited pay off if your hope is to moderate behavior. your comments? >> sir, i do not think we should tie the weapons program to food, but if food aid is provided, their heads to be strings attached, verification the food will reach the people, not be sold or given to the military. if they will not agree, we should not make an agreement. >> dr. green? the congressman asked why we go into the cycle, and we do, and the differences north korea is consistent, and we are not. every administration gets in a mode of sanctions and pressure, and it is hard for us to continue that. it stresses us. we have iran. we have domestic policies.
in 2010, we were in that mode, putting pressure on the north. the chinese felt the pressure. we stood with south korea. we shifted towards trying to engage and put pressure on south korea to back off of demands to the north. even though they lost the food aid, they had points on the scoreboard by marginalizing our allies. i did not think that was the intention, but that is what happened. >> if i had more time i would ask this panel to comment a little bit on the consolidation by the new leader in north korea, and how real he is as leader as opposed to a tool of the military. >> that question hangs. thank you, mr. gerry connolly. mr. edward royce is ready. >> thank you. since food aid is discussed, i
was just mentioned a hearing on this subject, where we heard testimony of sacks being delivered in a village, and villagers being told do not touched those, and the trucks coming back and picking up the sacks, so one of the questions is what they do with that? a french ngo explained that the food was sold on the exchange to get hard currency for the regime. this is perhaps the greatest problem. as we look did the interviews with defectors, they say food does not go in the no-go areas. food does not get out there. i had, for the record, an amendment, the edward royce amendment that prohibited food aid from going to north korea
under these circumstances. that was watered down in the senate, by the way. i share the gentleman from indiana's concerns about the control of the food and it indirectly propping up the regime. a couple of points that i want to make here, and ask you questions about, -- to go back to mr. howard berman's point, about elevating the discussion of human rights in this dialogue, do you think it would be helpful if that became, sort of, a strategic imperative, because nowhere on the planet are people as ground down, from what i saw, and if you read the reports about the concentration camps, i think it would be
beneficial if there were is greater understanding on that front, and second, we now have broadcasting into north korea. how about more robust radio free asia broadcasting about what is going on? for example, this admission on the part of the north korean regime that the launch was a bust. that is the first time to my knowledge you have an official mention that. how about broadcasting the cost of the launch, you know? then, the privations, that people face, the conditions, that people face in north korea. 40% of the people that leave the country say they are listening to the broadcast, giving access to these cheap radios that come over the border from china.
they are listening to the broadcast. the dnestr your thoughts on those subjects. >> -- let me ask you your thoughts on those subjects. >> thank you. when i was in the george w. bush the administration i worked every day on the north korean food problem, try to negotiate strict criteria. that is the test, to make sure the food gets to the people in need. it is not really leverage. that is why mr. frederick fleitz was saying this is not the lever for negotiations. it should be based on humanitarian protected if we cannot get it to the people in need, we should not deliver it. >> i think we have a consensus. >> information is important, which is why i am suggesting an information campaign that does
not been seen before, but it has to be partly based on the engagement. if you consider the workers working on the one economic zone in south korea, that has been an intelligence minefield. we cannot get into this in open session, but i can tell you that those people have had an eye- opening the effect by seen south korean prosperity. they also get it across the chinese border. >> i am stand all of this, but to the extent we have hard currency going to the regime, a regime that built a nuclear weapons program for syria and did it while we were under supposedly an agreement where they would not proliferate. they were proliferating beyond anything we could have imagined while doing a two-track nuclear program, and they are selling it, who knows where. at some point, we have to figure out how to cut off the hard
currency, and accelerate the change in sight, and more access i am not sure it is the answer. >> targeting china's banks is a way to get after the people in charge. >> good point to >> thank you. -- point. >> thank you. >> mr. gingrich rather -- mr. d and r roche of record -- boehner roche burg -- >> thank god that we won the debate. for every limited to try to lodge a rocket, eight reinforces having a defense system. that is one of the only thing that gives us leverage here. we can't defend ourselves.
i have also been -- we can defend ourselves. i have always been privy to the debates about food aid to north korea. when did the united states assume the responsibility for the nutrition of the north korean people? i mean, this is a loony policy on our side. shall we say that any dictatorship around the world that decides if they want to spend their money on weapons production, that they are automatically going to qualify for nutritional aid for their people from the united states, and we are going to have expressions that are so concerned that the food aid we are giving them goes directly to the people. what dictatorships are we leaving out of that equation? every dictator that wants to
spend more money on weapons, do it, and we will give them food aid, or is it just north korea? this is an insane policy. i remember debating this 20 years ago. it has happened now, and it has not done any good giving them all of this money has provided them the resources they need to spend $850 million on a rocket launch. this is something that we -- i think that we need to, again, have reality checks when we go into debates on such policies as these. i would like to ask about the chinese here. >> do any of you have evidence that there were chinese components on better rocket, and
in the new clear systems they have been building, are there not chinese components to that that are vital to the success of those projects? whoever knows anything about it. >> several of us have had clearances, and there is only so much we know, and so much we can say, though we do know the north koreans have put together their nuclear program, there in richmond program, by purchasing highly-refine uranium, tool-use materials all over the world. >> how about the hardware? >> a lot of it comes to china. yes. that is why beijing, following the letter of the sanctions resolution is hardly enough. >> so, it is it not possible that when we see this impoverished regime in north korea that cannot even feed its
own people, the regime that counts its power on the basis of the number of people marching down the streets doing the goose step, that this is a regime that is actually responsible for building these nuclear reactors and this technology. are we not dealing with beijing -- it is beijing not using north korea as a proxy? please stay calm. forget what i'm doing, go blame the other guy over there? >> i tend to think china is not behind north korea's nuclear program. i think china likes having north korea as a buffer between it and south korea, but from what i have seen china has never been happy about north korea's pursuit of nuclear weapons.
>> i have 15 seconds left. i am going to suggest that china is the big players here, and just like we do not want to face reality, that we should not be giving food aid to a dictatorship like this, or we need a missile defense system, we do not want to face the reality of the downside of china, and for whatever reason this has been going on for 20 years to america's detriment, and no more is that clearer than in our policies with korea. >> thank you, dana rocker -- boehner orchard. >> it seems to me that kim jong il on is just like his daddy. he follows in the footsteps of his daddy. he is trying to make a name for himself. he makes promises, and he lies.
he breaks his word shocked. where i come from, is a man breaks his word, you probably should not trust him the next time he gives his word not to do something or to do something. it seems to me, here we are coming over here, the united states -- ok, we will try again in a few years. a few months. we will promise you the same thing if you hold off on, in this case, your nuclear capability. it seems to me that just does not work for north korea. does not work for iran. we are pushing a decision to really do something to the next administration. i know we have heard from the other side that this is bullish's fall, clinton's fault, it does not make any difference. we are it in a situation where north korea is going to be a
threat. my first question is what is the policy of the united states over all in dealing with nuclear capability of north korea? will we just keep making promises, he tried to give them food, help the people? what is our policy toward north korea? dr. frederick fleitz? >> part of the problem in dealing with north korea and iran is we are recognizing their right to nuclear technology. i remember when president bush reaffirmed iran's right to declare technology, and many of us have argued if you pursue technology secretly, you are not entitled, and unfortunately both administrations indorse that. maybe that could be something that congress could looking into. >> what do you recommend? >> i recommend it states that
she'd have no right to nuclear technology -- that she'd have no right to nuclear technology -- cheat have no right to nuclear technology. and agreed framework was going to give north korea two additional reactors. that was a foolish agreement. if i was to find the biggest problem with our policy, that is it, and that is something we should work on. >> dr. green, briefly? >> i do not think any administration will offer north korea a light water reactor. iran is another story. i agree on that front. there is an assumption that if we can contain the north korea nuclear problem, cut a deal, and pay them off, we can manage
them. the problem with the theory is that the north koreans will not sit still. they will use these timeouts to increase weapons capability, threaten transfer, and to continue raising the asking price. we need a strategy that focuses increasingly on roll back -- missile defense, alliance corp., interdiction, and if we cannot do with china, we do it without china. i would maintain a diplomatic element. you do need some channel of communication for a variety of reasons. we have headed back toward. may negotiations center stage, and all the other pieces secondary considerations. >> it seems to me the north koreans do not take us seriously. would you agree with that or not, dr. green? >> they take us very seriously in one sense. after the collapse of the soviet union, their strategy was to
develop a relationship with the u.s. to marginalize the south. >> i'm talking about with respect to consequences? >> i think the north koreans have done used to a pattern where we have a hard time maintaining pressure on them. we back off and move onto other things. even our approach in the security council was to save our diplomatic ammunition. >> one last question, long-term, what is north korea's intentions? what do you speculate? somebody needs to answer before my time is up. >> long term, this corrupt regime wants to stay in power. that is the purpose behind kim jong un and his family. >> do you think we should remove them from the foreign terrorist list? >> absolutely not. >> thank you very much.
you got a lot yet in those 11 seconds. christopher smith is recognized. >> thank you, madame chair. at a hearing that i chaired in my subcommittee last september on its human-rights in north korea, the witnesses made the following two point. any attempt to address the nuclear weapon issue while deep fryer to chorusing the human rights region while deep prioritizing -- web de prioritizing human-rights was due to sell. i also chaired a hearing on china to the forced repatriation of north korean refugees, which pointed out china's violation under the refugee convention, and some of the witnesses they're made those points made in september. some of our witnesses today,
madam chair, have agreed that this in their written testimony, with many of the points raised at those hearings. dr. greene, you indicate the need a human rights policy that his unflinching in our condemnation of abuses in north korea, and our efforts to muster international support. he minotaur in is a humanitarian policy -- humanitarian policies have limits. you argue that that might be one of the most effective options for influencing north korea pointed choices. dr. patrick cronin, you indicated that you dramatically expand in north korea, with
radiobroadcast, and they seem to be having a positive impact. when doctor who? humanitarian work in north korea wrote to a caribbean service -- who does humanitarian work in their career roadway caribbean service that you are not only the voice of america, but the voice of the victims in the north korean dictatorship. rfa includes commentaries from north korean defectors to help them understand the broader world and how north korea appears from the outside. could any or all of you to comment on the role you think human rights has played in this administration's policies toward north korea, and what it should play, and for the elaborate on the means of communication, and kinds of information to all sectors of the military and society they you think we should be promoting? >> well, the administration's appointment of robert king as the ambassador of human rights was a good move.
a good man, doing a good job. i think we should be moving up to a higher level off. in particular, i think we need a more robust multi level strategy on human rights. for us, the bush administration was hard. we had a progressive left government in south korea did not want to play on this, and in europe we have countries that preferred to point the finger at the u.s.. we have a different lineup. we could create more of a multilateral front pressing china on the forced repatriation of refugees, and we know north korea is not going to fundamentally change its policy in the short term, but there is evidence of their sensitive, the toilet when there is a broad, multilateral indictment of their -- particularly when there is a broad, multilateral indictment of their regime. that is where i would encourage dr. king to bring it up to the next level. >> i think we have focused on a
handful of issues, try to strike agreements on nuclear issues that were fairly weak, and we have put other issues such as human rights to the side because they were a distraction. i think that has been a mistake. we have to hold to our principles and fight for everything we believe in when we engage the north koreans, not just the issues they are interested in talking about. >> thank you. the 1 million cell phones in north korea means intermission can flow from one part to another part. the more information we can pour in to north korea, it can reach them, and it is starting to. north korea is trying to prop up a military that is gobbling up more than one-quarter of its weak gdp. a $27 billion gross domestic product. china is the number one patron. we have to expose this and get
information flowing in. we need our south korean ally in this election coming up this december in south korea. >> i want to say that the human rights act has been a major contribution from the u.s. congress with strong support for funding for information flows targeted at north korea. you know, all the still need to work very hard on highlighting china's really terrible policy of repatriation of north korean refugees. i know you have done a lot of work to highlight that could >> thank you. >> thank you very much. although we would formally conclude at this time, mr. gerry connolly has an issue so pressing, so urgent, that i told them he could have a few minutes to ask it, and bring it up, so as not to cause extreme stress, acid reflux, coronary disease, and any other medical
complications that could ensue. mr. gerry connolly is recognized could >> why do i have the feeling this is going to cost me -- recognized. >> why have the feeling is going to cost me? it seems to be and i think we would have a hearing in north korea and not talk about the change in leadership, and i think we would benefit from your observations remembering that we have to be sustained. who is this new leader, and what is our understanding of consolidation of power and who really holds the power in the north, and what it might mean moving forward for the discussions we've had this morning? >> mr. schneider. >> so far, what we of scene is continuity on the surface appeared as could be seen from the video, there is something odd, hard to except in the west about a 30-year-old kid running
a country surrounded by 60-year- old generals. when did not know what is happening under the service -- surface. we are watching through a television screen. the chinese have better access. will we really need to see is how the leader is interacting with those around him directly to make a clear determination. >> so far, he is following a clear game plan. they are making him out to look like his grandfather, the great leader. he is appearing more in public than people expected. normally there is a 100-day mourning after the death of the father, but he is basically following a game plan. i think the missile program is largely in place and that kim jong il made all the judgment calls about how to respond to western pressure and so forth, but the interesting and troubling thing about this young successor is how will he handle when things start getting rough after future nuclear tests
and provocations? how will he handle that in the margins? that is where the unpredictable factor comes in, and where we might see tensions between him and other military leadership figures. >> i think kim jong un is secure, because kim jong il's phil-health was known for some time. i think they have a transition in place for some time. whether kim jong un is really running the country, or kim jong il of the powerful brother-in- law and his wife are part of a triumphant, we do not know yet. i just tend to think that this -- the military is not going to challenge him. the generals who might have long ago were purged.
>> the fact that kim jong un went ahead with the deal that had been negotiated last october suggested that he did not need continuity or could not overcome the military-first structure he was an error in. i've done many television interviews about kim jong un, and the thing they did not put on the television is the u.s. government, the south korean government, do not really know, because we do not have direct access to the dynamics of the leadership and how they make decisions. whinney to get much closer to the problem to get a better -- we need to get much closer to the problem to get a much better understanding. we need to stick with that over time. this is a long game. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. gerry connolly. thank you to the witnesses. sorry about messing up the order and totally dissing dr.
patrick cronin there at the end. thank you, leeson gentleman. thank you for joining us. the committee is adjourned. -- ladies and gentlemen. thank you for joining us. the committee is adjourned. >> the space shuttle discovery is now on display at the smithsonian museum outside of washington, d.c.. it arrived earlier this week. you can see the landing and the transfer ceremony tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> this year's student cam competition as students around the country was part of the constitution was important to them and why. >> today's second prize winner selected the first amendment. >> we shall overcome ♪ we shall overcome
we shall overcome some day peace in my heart we shall overcome someday ♪ >> let me start with an allegory of a poker game. this game involves two individuals, one white, the other black, and the game has been in progress for 350 years. during the time, the white player has been cheating, and over the span of three and a half centuries, the white player stands up, stretches, and says from this day forward no more cheating. we will play fair and square. the black pirate looks up from the table and says great, i have been waiting 350 years to have
you say that, let me ask, will you do with the coker -- poker chips sitting on your side of the table? >> my name is talia moore. i'm a birmingham native. today, i am in a historical park which in the first week of may, 1963, it public safety commissioner confronted marchers, telling them to stop marching, it was a violation of safety, but they utilize their first amendment rights, which states that have the freedom of speech, petition, assembly, and to work as they please. today, i am going to visit three destinations that are important to alabama's history that utilize the first amendment. i am going to the 16th street baptist church, the high school, and one more place, which will be disclosing the end of the documentary. now, our first destination, the
16th street baptist church. ♪ turn me around nobodyoing to let ♪ [applause] [unintelligible] all places. >> our first destination is the 16th street baptist church. it was here where assemblies were made and held. the southern christian leadership conference organized demonstrations and gave speeches in that pulpit. we held several meetings of 16th
street baptist church and other places. we sang, we prayed, we heard good sermons being preached, and we heard sermons concerning a person's right, and our person has a right, and they should assume the right to speak out against what is wrong, and speak up for what is right. we have a right to peaceful assembly, and all of those things. they took place in this church. demonstrations were made out of this church can we marched out of this church downtown to picket the segregated stores, businesses, like that. people, i believe, were born again in this church. they got on the side of justice. that is why there is this saying bad been meeting tonight, they were present. some of them are still left in
some of them have gone on to glory. others have been added to the choir, singing praises to god, and praise was a big part of getting people motivated and strong enough to stand against segregation. >> now, on for next location, john herbert phillips high school. it is a big part of the civil rights movement in 1957, a civil-rights activist tried to enroll his daughter in the school. klansmen were waiting nearby. he was brutally beaten with chains and brass knuckles. his attempt was crucial to the history of the school. it was later integrated and has become john herbert phillips academy, k-8 with a diverse and roll it. the principle of the school would not be in a position that
he is in now. >> petition the government for redress. he used the freedom of speech. all of those things are important in our school because of the history that we have here. the children, like yourself, who are coming along, they are able to have the freedoms that many people in the past did not. one of the things we are really proud about is that prior to him passing, he met with our students, and he was really old, but his children came and they were able to explain the history of them tried to register into our school, and the mob that attacks their father. one of the things that kept him focused was the fact that he was right morally and constitutionally. so, the first amendment was the underlying support for his
belief -- for his commitment to getting his children into the school. >> kelly ingram park saw, 16th street baptist church, and john herbert phillips academy in -- what do these three things have been common? one thing was the struggle during the civil rights movement, but it also means here, at the birmingham civil rights institute, our secret location, where history has been collected throughout the civil rights movement, i bet you are wondering how does all of this benefit may? had it not been for martin luther king who spoke, or the reverend who was beaten at said john herbert phillips academy, or for the southern christian leadership conference that hot digit that spoke and held assemblies at the 16th street --
conference that spoke and had assembly's of the 16th street baptist church, i would not be here. i would not have a chance to be on the debate team. i would not the chance to meet people of another ethnicity. thanks to them. i have the chance to do that. now, i want you to know. thank you for watching this documentary, and i hope you understand how important the first amendment is to be. >> go to student cam.org to watch all of the videos. >> when i was indicted in eastern afghanistan, the soldiers started telling me the u.s. government was wasting tens of billions of dollars on mismanaged development of logistics' contracts. >> following the money in afghanistan, finding corruption from top to bottom with douglas
wissing. >> i was in a meeting where the brigade commander, an effective guy, not long after president obama took office, the state department said we would give you a bunch of development money, counter-insurgency, when their hearts and minds, nation- build, and the colonel said in not sending more money. send me contract officers to see this -- to oversee the stuff. i need more money -- i did not need more money. douglas wissing -- >> douglas wissing, sunday night on "q&a. >> now, a house foreign affairs subcommittee hearing on the state department's counter- terrorism efforts.
the department's counterterrorism coordinator, and daniel benjamin, will discuss his office's budget, and what the administration proceeds of the -- as the biggest terrorist threats facing the u.s.. this is an hour. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> this hearing will come to order. today, we welcome ambassador benjamin carroll while al qaeda has taken major blows over the past year, the terrorism threat remains real. late last year, the committee was notified that the office of
the coordinator for counter- terrorism, which is been in existence since 1972, would transform into the bureau of counter-terrorism. according to the state department, the celebration was natural as the office's responsibilities had outgrown the accord naders title. when reported to congress, the state department noted that only existing funds would be required to create the new bureau, and any changes in personnel would be, in their words, marginal. for this fiscal year, the bureau is seeking to increase staffing by 17%, which is a rather unorthodox definition of marginal. the state department would like for this new bureau to be headed by an assistant secretary, and specifically by ambassador benjamin, our witness here. the department could have made this move on its own, but it chose to take the heads of its
new energy and post-conflict bureau's assistant secretaries instead, and appoint them, basically. making that choice, and now facing a statutory cap for assistant secretary positions, this department is seeking relief to allow the counter- terrorism bureau to be headed by an assistant secretary. most members of congress probably think the state department can be run quite well by the 24 assistant secretaries and the dozens of special envoys it already has, and that is why we have raised this point before, and we have found ourselves in this same conundrum with circumventing the cap. more critical land title, it is the control of resources that will seal this new bureau's faith. while we have money flowing to the state department, less than half is controlled by ambassador
benjamin's bureau. if the bureau of counter- terrorism is to play as robust of a role as envisioned, and we on this subcommittee support that will come that equation has to change in terms of control of those funds. the counter-terrorism lionsgate has changed substantially since the ambassadors testimony one year ago. osama bin laden and anwar al- awlaki are now dead, but senior obama administration officials have gone so far to say they are you reach a strategically defeating al-qaida but just weeks before bin laden's death, we had testimony before the subcommittee. ambassador benjamin mentioned at the time that we continue to see a strong flow of new recruits into many of the most dangerous
terrorist organizations. we will see if that is the case today. one year has brought other changes as well. radical elements have egypt looking into the abyss. armed militias have libya deeply sectionalized. there are concerns over foreign fighters in syria. it is hard to see how some of these developments have not harmed the u.s. counter- terrorism efforts. other regions like africa and the western hemisphere are of concern. the earlier this year, the subcommittee focused on iran's growing role in the western hemisphere, and we have groups like one called education is sinful, carrying out attacks across nigeria, causing mayhem there. pakistan, specifically the security services and the backing of an array of militant groups is a perennial concern
for us. the state department announced a reward for information leading to a conviction of the head of the army of the pure, as they call it. that group is the outfit that carried out the attacks on mumbai. that this individual continues to operate freely today, inside pakistan, certainly is an indictment of islamabad as a counter-terrorism partner, and unfortunately there are many other such individuals that are loose, and maybe did not commit that particular rampage, but are planning the next one, and our operating freely in pakistan today as well. we look forward to discussing these and other issues with ambassador benjamin and i will turn to ranking member sherman
for an opening statement. >> thank you, chairman edward royce for holding this meeting -- hearing. in 2005, congress was notified that the office would be updated to the bureau of counter- terrorism. the new bureau was announced. for 2013, the administration has billion dollars could reject million dollars. -- million dollars. in fiscal year 2012, the likely amount will be 238, so did administration is seeking a decrease in funds available for anti-terrorism programs of the state department. i would like to hear from the witness how the transition has aided counter-terrorism efforts. i would like to citywide to benjamin -- ambassador benjamin
for his service -- state thank you to benjamin -- ambassador benjamin for his service. i am considerably less skeptical than the chairman of the bureau of counter-terrorism being infected euro and not an office, and even if did administration was seeking an increase in funding for the bureau, given the importance of your work, i would be supportive, but it appears from the statistics i went over, the and administration is able to function without seeking an increase. one program of particular importance is the countering of violent extremism cve program that aims to prevent at-risk use from turning to -- youth to return to terrorism and to renounce their affiliation.
five cve countries have been identified. i especially want to focus on pakistan, where i think it is very important that we reach out to the voice of america, not only in their language, but in other languages that are commonly spoken in pakistan -- this should not be interpreted by the pakistani government as being an effort toward separatism. if you're trying to sell product in los angeles, you would not dream of having your advertising program being one language. walmart is not try to separate any part of california from the united states, but they're trying to sell a product to people that speak a variety of languages. we have captured or killed most of the world's dangerous -- many of the world's dangerous terrorists, the we are not open
fully successful in the war of ideas -- we have not been fully successful in the war of ideas. the creation of cve program was an accomplishment for ambassador benjamin, and i would like to know if this is to be expanded, or if more than 5 per arctic countries need to be added. to deceive terrorists long term, we must take steps to reduce recruitment of young muslim men into extremist organizations. i agree that one of the most important missions in the bureau of counter-terrorism would be to lead u.s. efforts to delegitimize the extremist narrative and providing positive alternatives to a young muslim small marble to recruitment. -- vulnerable to recruit and. i have one area where i differ
from state department policy. that is with regard to the mek and campus liberty. -- camp liberty. the u.s. court of appeals voted -- ruled there were procedural errors in that identified the group as a terrorist organization. they failed to accord the due process protections required by law and needs to review the status. we would like to see the state department desk. i realize ambassador benjamin is not in full control of this entire process. it is a remedy not often granted by the courts, especially not in the foreign policy area. the court has scheduled an oral argument for may 8, 2012. ambassador benjamin, your
predecessor has recommended the mek the remote from the list of terrorist organizations. -- be removed from the list of terrorist organizations. i am not aware of anything the group has done that would justify continued classification. i would note the hawkeye the hakinni s not been -- group has not been identified. the state department should not list groups as terrorist organizations and just leave them there. the purpose of the designation is in part to force the organization to change its behavior, and whenever behavior caused the mek to be listed, and even that is subject to
dispute, no one asserts that they have not identified -- that they have taken action in recent years that would cause them to be put on the list, and, of course, the contrast to the network is extensive. i've gone on a little long. i will make a few more opening comment remarks when i'm called upon for questions, and that means i will have even less time to hear from the witness, which is why i will listen to him so intently during his opening statement. >> mr. poe. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ambassador benjamin, it seems to me we have a continuous problem. iraq does not want campe